Is Jesus a Man That God Selected?
- Thread starter Wrangler
- 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!
True but to say there are literal statements in a book is not to say there are no figurative, non-absolute statements ALSO.
1,000’s of verses in Scripture show you are wrong but this thread is laser focused on one verse only, Acts 17:31.
These 2 things are not the same:
A. Being on the same page as another.
B. Being the same being as another.
Jesus said we are one also but that does not make us God any more than him.
That seems to make "Absolute Truth" subject to every nutter out there . . . who fails to find it obvious that . . .
Much love!
I've been talking about the language, and what is being said.
And no I don't have a desire for you to share with me your statements of "why I believe as I do". But I'm certain you will if you want to.
Why is the Voice translation not faithful there? It puts a spin on the word and therefore the verse, that the Greek does not. Other translations perserve the idea of the Greek, and I prefer those.
Much love!
OMG! The Voice is totally faithful here! I all translations, God is the subject of the sentence, doing the acting. In all translations Jesus is the object of the sentence, being acted upon. In all translations Jesus is properly identified as a man, juxtaposed to God, in his unitarian nature.
You can quibble all you want about the best English translation to the Greek word that means selected, ordained, appointed or what have you.
That's what troubles me in that translation. It seems to me to change the intent of the passage, by not holding true to the meaning of that word. It doesn't mean to choose from among others, or something like that. But that translation makes it sound as though it does.
And, this seems to be being examines as a trinitarian issue, I see this as a translational issue. And we ought to get the translations worked out so we know what God actually said, and THEN move on to doctrine. Not choose a doctrine, and then pick a translation to support it.
Much love!
Yup. That's because you know the genus, man is among the plural men.
It is TOTALLY a trinitarian issue. Hence your Appeal to Diversion objection to the word rather than language usage, subject and objects of sentences. The object of the sentence is the man Jesus.
I'm just looking at the use of "horidzo", the work that you are pointing to. It does not mean to choose or select, it means to limit, place a bound.
Jesus is the only One.
Much love!
No. I'm challenging your translation of one word.
You've point to that word, and based your arguments upon it. I'm not talking about Trinity at all. This verse doesn't, in my opinion, have any real contribution to make to that discussion one way or the other, as it doesn't make that kind of a statement.
But it seems you are presenting is as if it were making a statement with Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian implications. And I'm saying, you are going on a translation that's not true to the word being translated.
I'm not even beginning to think about Trinitarian arguments, not unless we can come so some agreeable conclusion of what this word even means.
Is examining the foundation of your conclusion a diversion? I think it's the heart of the matter.
Much love!
I am Groot.
Every time you back pedal to another language, you have lost the argument, abandoning the field of ideas. Who was horidzo'd? Who was limited and bounded? The word of God is emphatic on this point. The man Jesus was acted upon in Acts 17:31. Jesus, being a man, is among men, not the only one.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,086
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
well, a dog “obviously” has four legs, right, except to a blind person, which could even be me, so i guess “obvious” was a poor choice of concepts, and a better one, in keeping with the definition, would be something like “there is no disagreement,” which imo likely even applies to Commandments, at least broadly speaking? The second five anyway, the Hammurabi ones
It's not my translation.
However, I generally like to use this translation.
It's not about word translations but language structure. Biden <horidzo'd> the woman Harris to be VP. Whether you think horidzo'd means limit, select, appointed or ordained, the sentence makes Harris is not Biden but a woman.
When you add "select from among others" as a meaning to the word, you go beyond what that word means. And the context does not require anything other than what the word normally and customarily means.
And apparantly because you see the standard translation as being Trinitarian, and the Voice translation being non-trinitarian.
Trinity, no trinity, you believe which way you believe, but let's let the words be what they are, shall we?
Much love!
100%. I know Appeal to Diversion when I see it. Funny how you are imposing your doctrine onto the text while simultaneously claiming it has nothing to do with trinitarian doctrine. Of course not.
Here is another translation I like to use. horidzo is apparently translated as chosen.
He (God) has set a day when he will judge the world’s people with fairness. And he (God) has chosen the man Jesus to do the judging for him. God has given proof of this to all of us by raising Jesus from death.
Acts 17:31 CEV (Emphasis added)
You are adding "from among others" to the word of God because it offends your doctrine. Pure Appeal to Strawman.
I don't really know what you are saying here.
I've "horidzo'd" my coffee to my coffee cup. I could have just poured it anywhere. But I horidzo'd it to the cup.
Much love!
Not so. It doesn't seem that you are following my argument. I'll see if I can think of another way.
I don't think you realize, I'm not giving any consideration towards how the word meaning affects doctrine, only that we understand the meaning of that word.
Much love!
Similar threads
