Posted on 02/05/2007 10:35:59 AM PST by MichaelTheeArchAngel
Actually, "Wisdom," as referred to in Proverbs, has been traditionally identified as the Holy Spirt. Nonetheless, that fact does not affect any arguments here, since proving it merely through scripture is unlikely, and the truth of that assertion is irrelevant; what matters is only the fact that there is no proof that Wisdom is not a person, and so the fact that a thesis inplies that Wisdom is a person does not negate the render the thesis in valid.
>> Can you find a scripture that says The Spirit has a body, eyes, mouth, ears??? <<
You misunderstand what a "person" is. You may be surprised to know that corporations (such as IBM) are persons, and as such, are afforded due-process and other considerations under the U.S. Constitution, for instance.
>> The Spirit can be grieved....so it must be a person. [Acts 7:51] But, does giving human like qualities to something make it a person? <<
Yes, actually, ascribing reason to something does make it a person, for instance. Relevant definitions of a person include:
"A self-conscious or rational being." (Animals are not known to be self-conscious; they may weep, or be sad, but "grieving" implies self-consciousness.)
"An entity recognized by law as having rights and duties."
"An individual of specified character: a person of importance."
From Latin, "persona," meaning "mask," "role," or "appearance." Hence, one being may, in fact, have three personae, in that they may play three roles, have three appearances, or don three masks.
In Greek, however, the concept represented in Catholic theology by "person" is "hypostasis": "the underlying or essential part of anything as distinguished from attributes; substance, essence, or essential principle."
As such, the three persons of the trinity aren't merely three "masks" or three "roles," but three fundamentally discreet realities; God the Father doesn't shift shift modalities to become God the Son; they are both eternal, and with discreet, essential and eternal characteristics.
>> It is not possible for one to confess that Jesus came in the flesh if one actually believes that Jesus is God/also God/Divine/God the Son/man-god, etc. <<
On what basis do you make this assertion?
>> As I said much earlier, trinity = baalim. <<
Yes, you have made this odd assertion before, and never explained it.
And what bible and tradition have you been fooled by? the modalistic monarchian tradition that Tertullian dismantled in his writings.
How does your bible quote Matthew 28:19. Since you don't like the KJV, here is Young's Literal Translation that some here like:
" having gone, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".
Does your bible identify three persons in that verse or not? Quote that verse from your bible and let's see how reliable your bible is?
Go to the back of Youngs or Strongs and it shows verses that have been altered or added to the texts as well as other known corruptions to the text.
Also look at an interlinear and you'll see how the KJV took some liberties with the Stephens text.
I don't rely on commentaries and church literature. I prefer to use various common research texts that don't require a formal education in ancient languages.
Then there are commonly accepted principles for research and interpretation such as most scripture is correct, clear, and to the point. Then one must consider both immediate and remote context. Then one should interpret difficult or unclear verses in light of the many clear ones and not vice versa. Don't forget that the Bible was written in an ancient eastern culture and some of their notions don't translate well. (salting and swaddling, standing at the gate and calling, covanents, etc) Also don't forget that there are many, many figures of speech to emphasize important ideas (polysyndaton, asyndaton, hendiady, hypocatastasis, etc.)
But you have to really want to learn the truth instead of rely on tradition.
And over the years I've met very few who have the courage to do that.
The fact that I have to explain it means that you don't know enough to understand it.
In times like these I yearn for a modern Jehu.
Well then there has to be some translation around that didn't take liberties with the text, right? Then tell us just what bible does have Matthew 28:19 translated accurately.
>> The fact that I have to explain it means that you don't know enough to understand it. <<
Knock off the condescension; given your misunderstandings of the words, "mystery," "person," and "trinity," you're in a laughable position to claim to hold knowledge above ordinary comprehension.
Care to offer a single way in which the trinity is akin to Baalim, or do you just like to blaspheme for sport?
>> And over the years I've met very few who have the courage to do that. <<
Extreme arrogance is a form of cowardice.
Both are counterfeit religions that look very close to the real thing, both involve pluralist gods, both properly require the definite article "the" as in the trinity and the baalim.
Regarding extreme arrogance being a form of cowardice, I wouldn't know, and, again, I'm not sure you can validate your claim.
>> Both are counterfeit religions that look very close to the real thing, both involve pluralist gods, both properly require the definite article "the" as in the trinity and the baalim. <<
That's IT? You call the trinity "baalim" just based on THAT? I presumed there was some deeper connection you were drawing. YOu should take far greater care in your blaspheming.
LOL...I guess your worship of a counterfeit pagan system doesn't bother you as long as I've only pointed out a handful of points, eh?
Since you can't even see when your own words are directly contrary to the Bible I see no sense in getting any deeper with you.
Your fundamentals are too weak to get into advanced topics.
The words (Let Us) are AIT, Assisted In Translation; They do not acure in the actual text. I have no problem with words AIT, unless they change the meaning of something.
I think the Jews know their own language well enough that they don't need any assistance from anyone else. The meaning of the Hebrew is "let us".
What text version are you reading from. All of the bible that I have also say (Let us), however it is not in the original HEBREW TEXT. Are you reading from a SEPTUGENT version.
What text version are you reading from. All of the bible that I have also say (Let us), however it is not in the original HEBREW TEXT. Are you reading from a SEPTUGENT version.
Your assertion simply isn't borne out by other usages. What you're wanting us to believe is that this is the correct translation here when it isn't translated like that anywhere else. One way to gain an understanding of a word or phrase is to study their uses and usages. Unique English translations are red flags.
For another example of AIT, look at the italicized words, especially in I cor 12:1
1Cr 12:1 ¶ Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
In the typical KJV Bible the word "gifts" is italicized because it is supplied by the translators. In this case the word 'gifts' is improperly supplied and twists the whole subject in chapters 12, 13, and 14.
The word 'pneumatikos' should be translated 'matters of the spirit' or 'spiritual matters' and then we could drop a whole lot of other problems such as having the so called gift of prophesy, or tongues, or wisdom, etc.
Bottom line and point is that there are many quirks in the common KJV or RSV that have given rise to twisted theology.
You said my: assertion simply isn't borne out by other usages. What you're wanting us to believe is that this is the correct translation here when it isn't translated like that anywhere else. One way to gain an understanding of a word or phrase is to study their uses and usages. Unique English translations are red flags.******This info that I am referring to, comes from the NIV exustive concordence; and that is all I have to say about the matter. Go ahead and have the last word.
For some reason my post are coming out in different places then from were I posted. Ohhhh Welll.
Dude! It's Hebrew and the Jews read Hebrew. It's the Hebrew Scripture, it belongs to them, and it's in their language. When they say it says, "let us". I believe them!
"For another example of AIT, look at the italicized words, especially in I cor 12:1 1Cr 12:1 ¶ Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant."
Rubbish! There is no Hebrew NT! Get a clue. The NT is in Koine Greek.
It is in any and all of the original Hebrew text. I posted the Hebrew in #111, and gave the Jews own translation of it. I also posted a link on the thread. Here it is again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.