Charity

My only response to YOU, Rocky , is that whatever other choices there might be, they should come from the bible as that was the context in which I was speaking. Now would be a good time to ask this question which should not be a problem in this thread. Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?

Was it the underlined sections that made you assume I was angry? I used that option to focus on certain points - not to insinuate I'm absolute right in what I'm saying.

On the Bible Hub website, Thayer's Greek Lexicon is used to attach specific definitions or meanings of a word to specific verses. According to this source, the meaning of "anothen" in John 3:3 is anew or over again, not "from above." I can't always follow their reasoning like in the long list of references given under the (c.) option. I accepted their reasoning based on Nicodemus not directly addressing Jesus' words by asking how one can be born from above but how one can be born from the womb a second time (i.e., again). To me, this makes sense if Jesus had said "born again" or "born anew." However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb. Jesus explains it further in the following verses. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jesus is telling Nicodemus an earthly truth - you can't see the wind around and above you, but you know it's there because you can hear it. So when one is born of the spirit (i.e., from above), it's the same - you won't see the spirit, but you will know you have it because you hear it? As a master of Israel, what should Nicodemus had understood about this but didn't? Some commentaries say it's referring to when God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life and Adam became alive/a living soul. Maybe it relates to how the spirit was described in the old testament. How do you see the above verses as explaining the meaning of being born from above in a way that Nicodemus should have understood?

You guessed in error what my tone was in asking that question - I am not angry, just bewildered. But you are correct in the point you made. If I can delete or edit the post, I will and will put in in a different thread. My apologies WordWolf.

If you feel like answering, which of the two choices above do you accept as accurate?

I tend to rely heavily on Bible Hub for the meaning of words which I know is limiting. Here is where I got the definition of "anothen." Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 509: ἄνωθεν ἄνωθεν (ἄνω), adverb; a. from above, from a higher place: ἀπό ἄνωθεν (Winer's Grammar, § 50, 7 N. 1), Matthew 27:51 (Tdf. omits ἀπό); Mark 15:38; ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν from the upper part, from the top, John 19:23. Often (also in Greek writings) used of things which come from heaven, or from God as dwelling in heaven: John 3:31; John 19:11; James 1:17; James 3:15, 17. b. from the first: Luke 1:3; then, from the beginning on, from the very first: Acts 26:5. Hence, c. anew, over again, indicating repetition (a use somewhat rare, but wrongly denied by many (Meyer among them; cf. his commentary on John and Galatians as below)): John 3:3, 7 ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι, where others explain it from above, i. e. from heaven. But, according to this explanation, Nicodemus ought to have wondered how it was possible for anyone to be born from heaven; but this he did not say;...Galatians 4:9 (again, since ye were in bondage once before). You can read the whole answer for (c) in the link below. "Anothen"

You make important points regarding the inherent problems with translating from one language to another which then become even greater when the language is an ancient one or from almost two thousands years ago. Post edited due to a concern about the question I asked.

That's nice oldiesman, but Jesus wasn't talking about himself in Matthew 19:16-24. Jesus knew perfectly well what was awaiting him after his death, resurrection and ascension - one could say that was what motivated him. Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

I don't know how Hampson is using the term "original" (which he does 15 times in the article) because he does not specifically say. One of his quote is "We are very fortunate – in English – to have access to so many translations. And equally fortunate to have ready access to the original texts." Maybe if he is going to use it, he should explain what he means by it.

Thanks for bringing this one up as I had never heard of the camel/rope issue before. I’ve looked at a couple of websites which agree mostly with what you shared here. The websites confirm that there is no evidence of the existence of a small gate in the walls of Jerusalem known as the “eye of the needle” where a man could barely fit through, let alone a camel. Could Jesus have been using the figure of speech “hyperbole” if the word he used actually meant a camel? It makes for a more interesting image but like you say, a rope is definitely more logical than a camel. My question concerns the point Jesus was making about rich men entering the kingdom of heaven. Do you think wealthy men in the Old Testament, such as the most wealthiest of all - Solomon, fit into what Jesus is saying? What about the filthy rich people who own all these megachurches nowadays? And what about the longstanding churches like the Mormons and the Catholic Church where their estimated wealth is anywhere between 50-200 billion dollars? Exactly how much are they worth and precisely how is their wealth being gained and spent? No one can know for sure because they are not required to reveal their financial information. Most convenient for them. Does this teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19:16-24 apply to any of them?

I indeed knew very little about critical analysis/thinking skills at the age of 18 when I became involved with twi. However, I did not see myself as invulnerable or all-knowledgeable. Just the opposite - I hated myself and wanted desperately to know God's love. The love bombing shown to me at the beginning was all it took.

Am I missing something here? What "original" do you and Hampson think exists? The Greek word “kunarion,” meaning “a small dog,” is used only 4 times in the NT, and they are all found in the account of the Canaanite woman in Matthew and Mark. Now the other Greek word for dog, kuon, meaning a dog that is universally despised in the East, is clearly used that way 5 times in the NT. One of those usages is in Matthew 7:6 which is something like what Jesus said to the woman. It is, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Similar ideas but 2 different Greek word used for “dogs.” I'm interested in why this is. Finally, in order to remove this d-word, Hampson suggests the passage should read as follows: Jesus said, ‘It is not right to take food away from the children.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, but surely there will be crumbs that fall from the table.’ However, he does say in his article about that translation “Having to eat waste, and having to crawl under the table to collect it,is humiliation enough.” So with or without the d-word, the woman is feeling humiliated. It may not be what the whole passage is about, but it is still part of the passage.

Concerning your reference to wolves above, you did not suggest in this case that the word should go untranslated but that it should just be translated “jackal.” For example: Genesis 49:27, ““Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf jackal: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” Concerning “anothen,” leaving it out would make the verse read as follows: John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Two problems with this is that it’s stating the obvious and also Jesus does go on to describe being born two ways – born of the flesh and born of the spirit. I don't see the big problem with this Greek word. Any disagreement with “anothen” seems to be whether it means anew or again. “Anew” implies something made new usually as an improvement over the old while “again” implies something happening a second (or more) time. Nicodemus obviously took “anothen” to mean born “again” as shown in his reply about entering the womb a “second time.” Since this was not what Jesus meant, he explains to Nicodemus the two kinds of births – to be born of the flesh and born of the spirit. The spirit would fit with “anothen” meaning “anew” as it is an improvement over being born of the flesh. The Gospel of John which talks about being born again was written decades after Paul’s epistles to the church and Peter’s first epistle. Therefore, the church already had been taught by Paul that the saints "are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" in Romans 8 as well as them putting off the old man and putting on the new man in Ephesians 4. 1 Peter 1:23 uses the phrase “born again” when it compares being born of corruptible seed called the flesh in verse 24 with being born of incorruptible [seed] which supposedly means being born of the spirit. Nicodemus told Jesus that no one could do the miracles he did “except God be with him.” Jesus’s reply to this statement appears to explain to Nicodemus in what way God was with him and that was because he was born of the spirit. Was this not a reference to what happened when the dove descended from heaven upon Jesus when he was baptized and with God saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?" The whole context of John 3:1-8 centers around the word "anothen" because it refers to being born of the spirit - a doctrine that is most prevalent in the NT. I can't see how leaving it out is beneficial.

You might have misunderstood me. I was only speaking of Hampson ignoring the problem - not you. The "elephant in the room" is that the word "dog" is in the Greek text for Matthew 15:26-27, and Hampson's solution to ignore them or have translations delete them from the bible seems to be promoting willful ignorance (IOW - burying one's head in the sand). Do you think this is a good enough way to deal with these scriptures?

I find it interesting that Michael Hampson focuses solely on the misogynistic implication of calling the woman a dog. He thinks that nine-tenth of its harshness would be reduced if it was a male who had come to Jesus in this account. I mostly agree with this, and the fact that Jesus never said anything of the sort to the Roman centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant gives some credence to Hampson’s point of view here. His conclusion is that “the word kynarioi is untranslatable” and writes, ”And that is why there is no place in the English rendering of Matthew 15.21-28 for the d-word: because the d-word has a misogynistic nuance in English that is not there in the original Greek.” (Not sure how he knows this as there are no original mss.) His solution is simply to cut out the phrases where “dog” is used when teaching these verses, and what remains (to quote him) “is enough” to make known Jesus' point. What is left then is "Jesus said, ‘It is not right to take food away from the children.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, but surely there will be crumbs that fall from the table.’" He goes further though to say that "any translation that still uses that word is – well, frankly, for virtually all purposes, and certainly for reading aloud in church, just wrong" and that doing so is a "serious error in translation, with terrible consequences." However, I don't think ignoring "the elephant in the room" strengthens anyone's conviction to know and understand "the truth."

What if you choose wrong? If one is counting on "once saved/always saved" but is not faithful in their walk with Christ, finding out this doctrine was wrong in the afterlife will be a pretty big problem. If one is counting on the requirement that you must remain faithful in your walk to get into heaven, what happens if you weren't faithful the week before you died because you were having some doubts? Will that person be saved?

What I think now is that this problem is compounded by the concept of "faith." We put our trust in either an ancient text that can be interpreted hundreds of ways or in a person who claims to teach the truth based on his/her own interpretation. Evidence for whether beliefs are true or not means nothing. Critical thinking about spiritual matters is considered inferior, unhelpful and often demonic. Answered prayers are always a hit and miss, yet this reality is so often ignored or rationalized. Feeling good can come simply from believing in a belief. On top of this, you have to wonder where education in our schools is going these days. How much does social media kill our desire to know what's truth?

vpw has been proven to be one of them, but there have been so many before him, there are many that are still preaching and prophesying today, and there will always continue to be more. How can we believe that Jesus is the head of the church when millions of his members have been abused in every manner possible? That's why when Christians say Jesus is cleaning house whenever a charlatan is exposed thereby forcing the creep to resign (e.g., Mike Bickle, LCM), I think of the phrase "emptying an ocean with a teaspoon." (Btw, it's not uncommon for the creep to resurface in some other church somewhere else.) Why do believers have such low expectations of their gods and saviors other than to say it will all come out in the afterlife? I still think that the afterlife is the greatest cover story for a fictional and inept god that there is, but it sure gets people hooked on their religion.

Okay, but if the bible is not clear on the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" or the doctrine that one must remain faithful to Christ to have eternal life, how do you know what to believe?

I think It is a very interesting piece of writing that has good ideas for discussion. I'll bring one up when I get the chance. Thanks again for sharing it. Even the link for The Times clergy survey at the end brings up relevant points right from the start (which is all I've read at this point).

Nah, it was making the 4 letters with your arms that was a hoot.

Thanks for the laugh

It is questionable as to why the gospels were not written until years after Paul wrote his major letters to the church in which he defined what Christianity was all about. And yes, having questions and looking for their answers is a good thing.

Thanks WordWolf - I'll look at what he has to say.

The first part of the AI Overview says, "The woman is persistent in her request to have her daughter healed. She is unafraid to bother Jesus and trusts in his goodness and sense of humor." I agree that she was unafraid to bother Jesus most likely because she was in desperate need of help for her daughter. Her pleading with Jesus to show her mercy may mean she trusts that he will do so, but it could also imply that she is hoping he will do so. My question is where in the story is there any sense of humor displayed? It's kind of a weird thing to suggest. Matthew's account gives more details than Mark's. The words in brackets come from the Greek definitions of the words they follow. Matthew 15:21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried (often conveying strong emotion or urgency) unto him, saying, Have mercy (compassion) on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously (severely, cruelly) vexed (possessed) with a devil. 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth (often conveying strong emotion or urgency) after us. 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25Then came she and worshipped him (fell at his feet), saying, Lord, help me. 26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. The AI Overview of Jesus's response is: "Jesus's words can seem harsh, but he is testing the woman's faith and commitment to her request." I don't think it was a test since the text doesn't say that it was. So, what did she do to make Jesus say she had great faith? It wasn't her persistent crying out as she followed him or that she called him Lord and the son of David or that she clearly made known her need because after all that, he answered her not a word and then proceeded to give her a reason why her daughter should not be healed. It also wasn't that she fell at his feet and again asked for help because he just doubled down on his reason after that. It was only after she came up with a common-sense loophole to Jesus' reason - mind you, it was one that required her to play the role of a dog - that he was impressed enough to heal her daughter. Who would have guessed that this was what it would take? That's my problem with the idea of needing to have faith - I've come to find it a guessing game as to what you should do or say, and it all doesn't matter anyway because prayers are answered by God at random.