"Son of man" meaning as used by Jesus

[notHagoth7]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

NotHagoth is arguing etymology of "Logos" if I understand him correctly...

Not so much etymology as John's intended meaning about Christ's initial nature.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

but I am not sure where he is getting Greek didn't mean "word".

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.

Well, words *are* used in discourse to help persuade reasonable people. As in, "reason with me now herewith..."

So I'm actually not saying that Logos *excludes* the idea of words. Instead, I'm saying that emphasizing the phrase "the Word" at the expense of the broader intent/purpose of Logos, obscures John's fuller, intended meaning...and thereby obscures the nature of God. Consider again my recent citation of Joseph. 

In any translation, a single word can have a spectrum of meaning, and translators are left with a choice. And, in this instance, I'm asserting that most English translators picked/emphasized the least helpful/accurate portion of the spectrum. 

If that doesn't make sense, or if you feel I've overlooked something worthwhile, please let me know.

Edited September 17, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

What I provided was a reductio ad absurdum, a standard  intellectual argument based on the absurd statements you had made.  I strongly recommend that you adopt serious, scholarly arguments, rather than the silly stuff you are attempting to fob off on us.  In doing so, I also strongly advise you to provide documentation for your claims.  No scholar I know of makes such absurd claims.

[waveslider]

22 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

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.

Well it was only Google that I used.  Thanks for doing all that work. I only looked at the first thing that popped up.

I always thought of Christ as being the word made flesh kind of like how in the Temple God says things to do in the creation and Christ did those things that were said. In my own mind, I always visualized him as being the word of God, in His very actions. It looks like I now have a lot more to ponder about this, but that is why I said:

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

At any rate it is an interesting tangent.

Thanks for your input.

[hope_for_things]

On 9/16/2016 at 3:33 PM, waveslider said:

Sorry! I misunderstood you. When you asked this:

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

Thats ok.  I haven't shared my personal beliefs from a faith perspective as I don't think they are relevant to the topic.  Still don't know of any first hand accounts about Jesus during his lifetime.  I think there is a gospel of Peter that the Gnostic's had, but I haven't read it and I'm pretty sure its dated to the 2nd century.  Also a gospel of Thomas, but again, I'm not as familiar with it.  

The point I was trying to make about this is that we have very little evidence for concrete historicity when it comes to these NT narratives.  That doesn't prove they all didn't happen, and there is some evidence that many of them were later embellishments or defenses of theological positions.  The scholarship is very interesting, but it will challenge the proof texting that is prominent within Mormonism.  

[hope_for_things]

On 9/16/2016 at 5:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

What I provided was a reductio ad absurdum, a standard  intellectual argument based on the absurd statements you had made.  I strongly recommend that you adopt serious, scholarly arguments, rather than the silly stuff you are attempting to fob off on us.  In doing so, I also strongly advise you to provide documentation for your claims.  No scholar I know of makes such absurd claims.

I'm not a scholar, and I've never claimed to be.  I even said as much in this very thread.  If you're going to just call someone else's statements absurd and silly without giving any specifics or even trying to engage in dialogue then you should just keep your thoughts to yourself.  As my parents use to say, "no comments from the peanut gallery".  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not a scholar, and I've never claimed to be.  I even said as much in this very thread.  If you're going to just call someone else's statements absurd and silly without giving any specifics or even trying to engage in dialogue then you should just keep your thoughts to yourself.  As my parents use to say, "no comments from the peanut gallery".  

I don't expect you to be a scholar, but I do expect that your off-the-wall statements should either have some legitimate, serious backing, or that you own up to their silly nature.  We carry on discussions on this board, even if we don't (and especially when we don't) agree with one another.   My effort at a reductio ad absurdum for your statements was based squarely on the silly nature of those statements, which I pointed to by showing the absurd consequences of taking any of them seriously.  This is the "peanut gallery," hope.  That is the nature of it.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't expect you to be a scholar, but I do expect that your off-the-wall statements should either have some legitimate, serious backing, or that you own up to their silly nature.  We carry on discussions on this board, even if we don't (and especially when we don't) agree with one another.   My effort at a reductio ad absurdum for your statements was based squarely on the silly nature of those statements, which I pointed to by showing the absurd consequences of taking any of them seriously.  This is the "peanut gallery," hope.  That is the nature of it.

Actually I don't think you ever did show any absurd consequences of taking what I said seriously.  Seems to me like you were just trying to poke fun at me without actually engaging in a critique of what I said.  

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually I don't think you ever did show any absurd consequences of taking what I said seriously.  Seems to me like you were just trying to poke fun at me without actually engaging in a critique of what I said.  

You need to carefully reread my posts on this matter.  Your replies indicated a complete lack of comprehension of anything that I said there.  All the more reason for you take the subject more seriously, perhaps taking the courses on the Bible as literature which I suggested.  It would open a whole new world for you.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to carefully reread my posts on this matter.  Your replies indicated a complete lack of comprehension of anything that I said there.  All the more reason for you take the subject more seriously, perhaps taking the courses on the Bible as literature which I suggested.  It would open a whole new world for you.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.  I went back through this thread and read every post you made, including the ones that weren't replies to me and you never mentioned courses on the Bible as literature.  I think you're either confusing me with another poster, or confusing this thread with another thread or both.  

I don't appreciate the condescending manner with which you've responded to me in this thread either.  

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Still don't know of any first hand accounts about Jesus during his lifetime.

I didn't originally limit what I said to only referring to Jesus' mortal life, but was referring to the fact that He still lives ever since being resurrected when I said this:

On 9/16/2016 at 8:36 AM, 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.

So I don't think I will be the one to ever come up with a first hand account of Jesus' mortal life.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I didn't originally limit what I said to only referring to Jesus' mortal life, but was referring to the fact that He still lives ever since being resurrected when I said this:

So I don't think I will be the one to ever come up with a first hand account of Jesus' mortal life.

The problem with this is that you're talking about two different types of knowledge.  One is a person spiritual knowledge, this is something that scholars can't study, this would include claims of divine communication, visions, dreams, etc.  

For example, I just visited Turkey this summer, and we went to the ancient city of Ephesus where it is believed that Paul and other early Christians preached.  There was a nun in the 19th century who had a dream that Mary the mother of Jesus lived in Ephesus during the final days of her life before she was assumed into heaven.  Its called the house of Mary, a very nice place with a shrine to Mary.  The nun purportedly saw this location in a dream or vision.  Popes have visited this place and while the Catholic church hasn't officially said the historicity of this house is authentic, they have pronounced blessings on the location and many people visit it each year to honor the site.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Virgin_Mary

Is it possible for scholars to validate the authenticity of the dream that this nun had? 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.  I went back through this thread and read every post you made, including the ones that weren't replies to me and you never mentioned courses on the Bible as literature.  I think you're either confusing me with another poster, or confusing this thread with another thread or both.  

I don't appreciate the condescending manner with which you've responded to me in this thread either.  

Sorry about the condescending manner, hope, but I do sincerely think that you would profit from formal course work in the Bible.  I can still recall how ignorant I was before beginning such serious college courses in biblical history and archeology. Too many, including you, take the life of Jesus so lightly that you actually believe that serious study is not called for.  Any opinion, no matter how absurd then becomes reasonable in your eyes.  I am sure that you are highly insulted to hear that, but only someone who cares would tell you the truth in such a matter.  Hate me all you want, but please get some serious biblical course-work under your belt.  You'll thank me later.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/16/2016 at 5:22 PM, notHagoth7 said:

Not so much etymology as John's intended meaning about Christ's initial nature.

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

So I'm actually not saying that Logos *excludes* the idea of words. Instead, I'm saying that emphasizing the phrase "the Word" at the expense of the broader intent/purpose of Logos, obscures John's fuller, intended meaning...and thereby obscures the nature of God..............................

In any translation, a single word can have a spectrum of meaning, and translators are left with a choice. And, in this instance, I'm asserting that most English translators picked/emphasized the least helpful/accurate portion of the spectrum. 

If that doesn't make sense, or if you feel I've overlooked something worthwhile, please let me know.

John was thinking primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic terms, even though he was writing in Greek.  So logos is not primary.  On the other hand, it is helpful to examine contemporary usage by Philo, in which he posits the Word/Logos as the only begotten son of God (Confusion of Tongues, XXVIII, 146-147, and Allegorical Interpretation, II, 86, and On Husbandry, XII, 51).  One likewise finds this in the Aramaic of Gen 1:1 as "From the beginning with wisdom the Memra (Word) of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth" (Targum Neofiti I; cf. Gen 22:2,12,16, Heb 11:17).   One also finds this Aramaic memra ”Word” in Targum Onkelos for Gen 3:8, 15:6.

This ancient concept of creating by means of the Word is also found in the ancient Egyptian Shabaku Stone; in Stoicism; in Middle Platonism; and in the Apocrypha, Ecclus 24; Baruch 3:9ff; Wisdom of Sol 7:22 - 8:8; Odes of Sol 7,12,16,19,41.  See also Prov 1:20-33, 8:27-30; Jn 3:16, 5:20, Coloss 1:15-16, Heb 1:3.

Hebrew dabar “word, speech; divine word, prophetic word; event, deed, thing,” is translated into many different Greek terms, including logos.  I have shown how the plural form, debarim “things, words,” is rendered both ways in the Book of Mormon at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=20 .

Ancient Egyptian mdw “rod, staff; word” = Hebrew mattē “rod, staff; tribe” (Genesis 38:18, 25) = Ugaritic mt.   This is very important since Egyptian mdw is not only frequently part of a phrase meaning “spell, recitation, liturgy” (dd mdw > Coptic demtau), but is also regularly used as part of the phrase mdw ntr “word of God, divine decree; sacred writings (hieroglyphic or hieratic); written characters, script” (Demotic mtw ntr), for Nephi exhorts his brethren to “give heed to the word of God and remember to keep his commandments”(1 Nephi 15:25).  Given this Egyptian-Hebrew cognate word, Matt Bowen found it remarkable that “the rod of iron” is interpreted in the Book of Mormon as “the word of God”(1 Nephi 15:24-25), Bowen, “What Meaneth the Rod of Iron?” Insights, 25/2 (2005):2-3.  That this was the phrase likely used by the Book of Mormon writers/editors is pointed up by Eg. mdw-ntr  “rod of God, word of God,” as in 1 Nephi 11:25 (15:23-24), an example of word-play which only works in the Egyptian language.

[maklelan]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Is it possible for scholars to validate the authenticity of the dream that this nun had? 

I think a bigger question is how you decide what's authentic and what's not in light of the fact that you can't authenticate or falsify the vast, vast majority of supernatural claims. One simply decides what they want to believe and what they don't, absent a sound methodology, so what use is appealing to "spiritual knowledge" in a discussion with others?

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry about the condescending manner, hope, but I do sincerely think that you would profit from formal course work in the Bible.  I can still recall how ignorant I was before beginning such serious college courses in biblical history and archeology. Too many, including you, take the life of Jesus so lightly that you actually believe that serious study is not called for.  Any opinion, no matter how absurd then becomes reasonable in your eyes.  I am sure that you are highly insulted to hear that, but only someone who cares would tell you the truth in such a matter.  Hate me all you want, but please get some serious biblical course-work under your belt.  You'll thank me later.

Ok, thanks.  I'm pretty new to all of this, and I don't take offense at your call for me to get more educated on Biblical scholarship.  I am trying to educate myself and I've learned a lot in the past couple years and I find it fascinating.  I may very well take some courses in the future.  

I have learned enough to know that there are differences of opinion throughout scholarly communities on various topics.  I hope that as I learn more about these topics, I don't get to a place where I look at the respected peer reviewed research of others, even the scholarship that I disagree with, and call that scholarship silly or absurd.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, maklelan said:

I think a bigger question is how you decide what's authentic and what's not in light of the fact that you can't authenticate or falsify the vast, vast majority of supernatural claims. One simply decides what they want to believe and what they don't, absent a sound methodology, so what use is appealing to "spiritual knowledge" in a discussion with others?

Right, and how would you measure authenticity?  I'm trying to learn how to think like a philosopher lately thanks to some other posters like MFBukowski on this message board.  

Spiritual knowledge or supernatural claims are personal in application.  They are authentic to the individual.  You can't prove or disprove them, as you can't test to see if someone had that experience inside their head, because its inside their head.  You can't get it out or extract it from that individual.  Its true to them irrespective of whether or not it corresponds with something in the actual world. 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Right, and how would you measure authenticity?  I'm trying to learn how to think like a philosopher lately thanks to some other posters like MFBukowski on this message board.  

Spiritual knowledge or supernatural claims are personal in application.  They are authentic to the individual.  You can't prove or disprove them, as you can't test to see if someone had that experience inside their head, because its inside their head.  You can't get it out or extract it from that individual.  Its true to them irrespective of whether or not it corresponds with something in the actual world. 

Yes but....

You can't even know anything about the "actual world" in this context.  You can't get out to the "actual world" to check if it "corresponds" or not.

Again the Rorty quote.  Sigh.

If all you see are your perceptions, all you see are your perceptions.  You do not see the "actual world" and there is no way to compare it to your perceptions.

You can't take off the rose colored glasses- or your perceptions so everything is "perception colored" and perception created.  THAT is the central insight of contemporary philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes but....

You can't even know anything about the "actual world" in this context.  You can't get out to the "actual world" to check if it "corresponds" or not.

Again the Rorty quote.  Sigh.

If all you see are your perceptions, all you see are your perceptions.  You do not see the "actual world" and there is no way to compare it to your perceptions.

You can't take off the rose colored glasses- or your perceptions so everything is "perception colored" and perception created.  THAT is the central insight of contemporary philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic

Right, good points of clarification, you're the teacher, I'm still the student. 

With respect to this thread and the topic we were discussing, some of the commentators were confusing academic pursuits to determine the historicity of events in the bible, with spiritual knowledge about Jesus obtained through visions, dreams or other methods.  I was trying to explain how those are two different ways of learning and knowing, and you shouldn't confuse the two.

Philosophically, both ways of knowing are perception colored and there isn't a way to look at scholarship or personal spiritual claims without either being colored by our perceptions.  

However, I think there is still value in the biblical scholarship being done within the constraints and context of the discipline.  You wouldn't argue that any efforts to do history or sociology or archaeology are worthless pursuits because of these philosophical paradigms, would you?