Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
Wow. Didn't know that.
Honestly I don't know anything about translations into English.
Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Honestly I don't know anything about translations into English.
I learned an important lesson from the experience; not necessarily about behavior, but about culture. I was operating in another culture as if I was operating in my own. The experience proved beneficial later when I was working briefly in southeast Africa.
What if someone came to me and said they had read the Bible when they had read an inaccurate translation (ex. The Living Bible)? I wouldn’t laugh at them. I would meet them where they were and try to help them advance.
I find that commendable.
There’s a lot of truth in that, but I think it can be taken too far. I’m reminded again of the trinitarian who is telling Muslims that the Quran teaches his interpretation of it vs. what they believe the Quran teaches. It doesn’t work and it’s dangerous.
I agree.
That’s partially true. Jesus is a Jew. The Apostles are Jews. The church was founded by a Jew, as a sect of Judaism, within Judaism. The early church was composed almost entirely of Jews in the first half of the first century. It later broke away from Judaism.
Additionally, there are in our day Messianic Jews (two branches: one trinitarian, the other unitarian.)
No doubt. I enjoy conversation with people of all faith traditions.
History documents your point.
History is, once again, in your corner.
The Pope will only go so far with that reasoning. (Christianity began within Judaism.) His desire is for Jews to come to belief in the Triune God and convert to Roman Catholicism.
I appreciate that you’re willing to take my word for it but I would like for you to read it for yourself. If you read it for yourself (link provided), you will be able to speak about it from firsthand experience rather than just anecdotally.
If you read it (I’m not going to force you to), what is the connotation? Is it the same or is it different to you from the connotation of the choir?
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
I appreciate that you’re willing to take my word for it but I would like for you to read it for yourself. If you read it for yourself (link provided), you will be able to speak about it from firsthand experience rather than just anecdotally.
If you read it (I’m not going to force you to), what is the connotation? Is it the same or is it different to you from the connotation of the choir?
I opened the link and read it.
This is enlightening. Thanks a lot.
If you’d like to, compare it with the Tyndale translation (link provided).
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
For me as baha'i, "The Word" is not a particular "person", so we don't identify it exclusively with Jesus of Nazareth... (the historical Jesus).
The Word refers to the Manifestation of God, to his Communication... the way God is revealed to an intelligence in his creation.
Bahá'u'lláh uses the analogy of the sun. God is like the sun, and the light coming from it is like the Word.
For all practical purposes, we know the sun because of its light (or any other form of radiation). Were it not because of the light, we wouldn't know the sun.
The sun is not the light... the light is not the sun... but we couldn't conceive a sun without light. In that sense, metaphorically, "the light is the Sun" ("and the Word was God")
The Word is eternal with God, because as long as sun has existed, its light has existed.
But God is the source of the Word, and not the other way around. The Word cannot beget God. The light cannot beget the sun. It proceeds from the sun. That's why we always find this relation of subordination of Christ towards God. Always.
That Word has dwelled in Jesus in such a way, that for practical purposes, teaching purposes, we often read Jesus referred to as the Word and that´s perfectly OK. Whoever obeys Jesus, obeys God. Whoever rejects Jesus, rejects God. He who has seen Jesus, has seen the Father.
However, in the Baha'i theology, the Word has also "dwelled" or "manifested" in other historical characters (e.g. Noah, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh).
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
If you’d like to, compare it with the Tyndale translation (link provided).
Great.
You are fortunate as an English speaker to have the pronoun "it".
In Spanish, we have to use either "him" or "her", as all things have a masculine or feminine gender. This makes things more complex:
Although some modern versions in Spanish use the term "WORD" as a translation of "Logos", most traditional versions use "VERB", which is a very unusual word in Spanish, very mysterious, and is masculine in gender. So, for a Spanish-speaking Christian, it is straightforward to read "VERB" as a mystical title of a male character, Jesus Christ. I constantly have to use the term "Word", which is femenine in gender... and then it does not fit anymore the imagery of a man, a male character.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
So far, so good.
But still, inasmuch as Christian doctrine is based on the books of the New Testament written some decades later, the Jew does not see any implication for such religion in his Tanakh.
I'm not saying the Jew cannot see it or will not see it eventually. Just stating that the starting point of a conversation between Jews and Christians has in common the acknoweldegment of the inspiration of some (but not all) texts, just as the conversation between a Baha'i and a Christian.
My point is that both conversations should not be considered so different in difficulty.
The early English translations (prepared by Protestant trinitarians) of the prologue in John’s Gospel work well with your theology (and with mine). Why “it” and not “he”? Those translators understood the logos to be a quality of God, not another person of God, which was with God and was God.
Why later English translations with “he” rather than “it”? The trinitarians (both Catholic and Protestant) who prepared those translations understand the logos not as a quality of God but as another person of God, who was with God and was God. That doesn’t work with your theology (nor with mine); it works well with trinitarian, binitarian, and most (not all) unitarian theologies.
That brings us full circle to your belief that your deity and the deity of the trinitarians (and binitarians and unitarians, not to mention the deities outside of the Christian sphere) is the same deity.
The theologies don’t match but the deities do? You‘ve said yes; I’ve said no. Our readers will have to decide for themselves.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
I'm afraid that if I make a detailed comment on your statement about the deity of the trinitarians, I will end up talking about the Trinity, which is not allowed.
So I prefer to stick to the "existential argument": Who trinitarians go to when they are in danger or in need?
If two mothers (one Jewish, one Catholic) at the same room of a hospital are praying to God for their respective children with refractory leukemia, and they happen to overhear the prayer of the other, they both will know they are praying to the same God.
If they happen to be the kind of mothers that like Theology (would it be 0.1% of all mothers?) some days later they may wonder if they were praying to the same deity... And even then, as they slowly walk away from the graves of their children, I think they will end up concluding they did.
Christian doctrine is based on the books of the Hebrew Bible and the books of the New Testament. The doctrine existed after the Hebrew Bible (which was the Bible of the early Christians) but before the New Testament documents were written. The doctrine changed as it underwent further development in subsequent centuries.
The official position of Christianity Board is the doctrine which was finalized in the fourth century (Nicaea AD 325 - as modified Constantinople AD 381, though not stated.) This is the doctrine which cannot be discussed. It isn’t my doctrine. My doctrine is “stuck” in the first century, undeveloped.
My starting point with Jews is the Hebrew Bible. They are Jewish monotheists and I‘m a Jewish monotheists. Very few Christians are Jewish monotheists. Most Christians have a developed post-biblical doctrine; trinitarianism being further developed than binitarianism and unitarianism.
I agree with your point.
We’ve skated right up to the edge in our conversation about the trinitarians. Any further and I think we run afoul of the policy. I hate that for the trinitarians but nothing I said in their defense persuaded the policy makers. Let us abide by the policy and refrain from speaking about the Trinity. (The policy is difficult for us; imagine how much more difficult it is for our trinitarian friends.)
I don’t think so. The Jewish mother knows that her God isn’t the deity of the Catholic mother.
When I visited the synagogue there was controversy. All of the Jews knew beforehand that I am a Christian. Few of them knew, before my visit, that I’m a Jewish monotheist. The Rabbi knew and, apparently, told a few members of the congregation - one of which was assigned to sit with me (and discreetly took me on a brief tour of the building when the moment arrived in the service where Christians are cursed). Even when it became common knowledge among the congregation following the service that I’m not a trinitarian, there were some who still made it known that they didn’t think I should be there. (The objection: Trinitarian or not, I was still a Christian who believes that Jesus is the Messiah.)
One more controversy. I left the Bible I normally use (an English translation containing the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament) at home. (I wasn’t going to speak with them about the New Testament; potential problem avoided). Instead, I took a Hebrew Bible with me and recited the Hebrew text aloud, in Hebrew, when the congregation did, to their surprise and dismay. (The objection: The Hebrew Bible I used wasn’t a Jewish publication. Some were upset that the “Christian” brought a Christian publication into the synagogue. I allowed them to examine my Hebrew Bible - some wouldn’t touch it, one or two did, but had pained expressions on their face when they skimmed through it before handing it back to me.)
I was invited to stay and eat lunch with the congregation. I accepted the invitation but only the Rabbi and the Jew (a dentist by profession) who was assigned to sit with me ate with me at the table where I was seated. The Rabbi surprised me, bringing up Jesus, curious about just what it is that I believe about him. It was a pleasant conversation and I was invited by the Rabbi to return anytime I wanted to. Ot was made clear, however, that Jesus wasn’t welcome. Left unsaid, the invitation was conditional: I was welcome to attend but only if I checked Jesus and Christianity at the door.
The Rabbi and I had no trouble agreeing on who the one God is. Where we split the blanket was over my belief that Jesus is the Messiah and theirs that he isn’t.
Last edited:
They go to their deity, the Trinity. (I don’t think saying so is a violation of the Board policy. It’s self-evident. No trinitarian is prohibited by the policy, as I understand it, from making it known that their deity is the Trinity. It shouldn’t be an issue for non-trinitarians to acknowledge it.)
What interests me in this conversation isn’t the Trinity but your belief (as a non-trinitarian) that your deity and their deity is the same deity.
P.S.
If for some reason a moderator should happen to take exception to me saying that the deity of the trinitarians is the Trinity, so be it. Whatever the penalty, I’ll accept it.
Last edited:
I’m sure that, like me, you have many things vying for your time and attention. Were you able to watch any of the video? I’d like to briefly follow up with you on the concept (not the content) of the program after you have.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
Yes, I watched it yesterday and then failed to let you know. My apologies, Matthias.
It would be a good exercise to find out what would be the questions we would frame to detect who believes in the God I believe.
Please let me know how you would like to use the example of the TV program.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
I really think they would conclude they were praying to the same God, but of course I can be mistaken.
I was a Catholic, as well as my mother and sister. We prayed to one Agent, one Will, one Mind.
In my imagination, as in the imagination of millions of Catholics with little theological backgound, God was an old man up in heaven. One old man. The one depicted by Michel Angelo in his painting creating Adam. That was the God I prayed to.
I knew enough theology as a child (derived from my devote attendance to catechism lessons) as to have provided a general answer to a general question on the topic we are avoiding. I would not have tried to explain it, because I knew it was a "mystery". However, I would have paid attention to the matter ONLY if asked by a priest or nun. Only in that exceptional context.
In my heart, I always prayed to a single Agent, and I know my mother and sister did.
Since the imagery of God as an old man on the sky is so prevalent among Catholics, I guess I was not alone in this regard.
When a Catholic starts praying "Our Heavenly Father who art in heaven..." they visualize one Father.
Last edited:
Are you telling me then that there was a disconnect between what you thought and what your doctrine at the time taught?
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
Yes, I am telling you that... and I can tell you that such a disconnection has happened and continues to happen in millions of minds.
Such disconnection does not only happen on the doctrine we cannot discuss here, but on several other doctrines.
It sounds like you have a good grasp on the concept of the program.
Here is the application I would make in our conversation: Three deities, side-by-side, all claiming to be Yahweh.
What is your name #1? My name is Yahweh. What is your name #2? My name is Yahweh. What is your name #3? My name is Yahweh.
One of them really is Yahweh; two of them are imposters.
Q. How would we identify which of the three really is Yahweh?
A. By asking them questions about Yahweh and comparing there answers with what the Bible says about Yahweh.
For example:
Question #1. Do you have a spouse?
Question #2. Did you beget a Son?
Question #3. Do you alone inherently possess immortality?
I’m sure that we could think of a great many questions that we could ask the three deities in order to determine who is true and who is false.
Similar threads
