View Full Version : Debate Over Trinity
Okay, here are Braiki's excellent questions to me:
- you said the bible tell us that the three is one, can you please quote it ?
- Christ said that only God is good (I guess u know what chapter I'm talking about) or when he speaks of the holy spirit, he says it comes from the Father... Doesn't that show that he's saying that the Father isn't/isn't like the Son ?
- also christ says before he dies "elli elli.. lama sabachtani" means "God, God, why have you forsaken me?" so did God really forsake him ?
All right. I went back and checked and couldn't find where I said that "the bible tells us that three is one." I don't think I would ever say that.
The Bible does NOT say that "three is one" as far as I know! It does speak about the unity of the Father and the Son. Christ claims the Name of God as His own on two occasions, He says that "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
He speaks of the Holy Spirit as a Comforter who will come "Whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He shall give testimony of me." Now, in the Bible, something's "spirit" is its soul or essence, not just a "messenger" of some kind. So, the Holy Spirit is another "someone" not a "something", and He proceeds from the Father and can teach and comfort. Yet another Person.
And of course, Christ's Great Commission after the Resurrection is to preach the Gospel everywhere, "baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Their "name", not "names."
I can't give a whole exegesis of trinitarian doctrine in Scripture, but the short answer is that these verses and others in Scripture can't be interpreted sensibly all together--so we see it--without essentially coming to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Okay, question 2.
I am impressed that you remember Christ's words from the Cross in Aramaic and English! You have obviously made a real effort to understand Christian teaching. Really, I would say as a Christian that both you and Haroundb have given us great respect for which I am grateful.
These words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," are a quotation from a psalm, Psalm 22. They didn't just come from nowhere. The Psalms are the great Songs of the Jewish and Christian religion and they contain much prophecy as well. They are words that Jews and Christians sing or say frequently.
The Psalm goes on to say, "they have pierced my hands and my feet" and "they have cast lots for my clothing", they have "surrounded me and mock me". So Christ is identifying Himself with the Prophecy of the famous Psalm, the "Just One" Whom the Psalm foretells.
Was Christ "forsaken" on the Cross? No, certainly not in an absolute sense. But whenever we suffer, we feel forsaken. Christ was in the midst of suffering all the sins of the World, with all their agony and doing so as a human like us. If anyone could have felt forsaken by God, it must have been Christ. He did not "want" to suffer the pains of the Cross, He submitted to them out of Love and in obedience to the Will of His Father.
So, we don't know what was in the mind of Christ, of course, all we have is His words. But these are the two ways in which we can see their appropriateness.
Oops! I see that was Question 3, not 2! loool! Okay, now I'll do number 2.
Sure, if the only thing Christ ever said, was "don't call me good, only God is good," you could make a good argument that Scripture testifies against the Divinity of Christ. But there are so many other places, such as the ones I cited above, where Christ claims or manifests His Divinity that you have to interpret them together.
Christ didn't say, anyway, "Don't call me good", He said, "Why do you call me good?" He is asking for reflection, not contradicting the one who called Him "Good Master." Why should you call me good, since only God is good? The end of the reflection is the conclusion that He is truly Good and therefore God.
Christ often questions in this way. He asks the Apostles, "Who do people say I am?" They answer, "Some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist" Then He asks Peter, "And who do you say I am"? And Peter says, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Bingo! Right answer! And Christ replies, "Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood didn't teach you this, but My Father, Who is in Heaven."
So, taken together with all the many places in which Christ says things like, "He who sees me sees the Father" and "I and my Father are one", it's impossible for a Christian to think that the meaning of this verse is that He is NOT God.
Whew! I'm going to stop there. My answers aren't perfect, I know. And it's taken me days to answer all the questions.
I am not trying to "convince" anyone of anything. But the Bible says, "always be ready to give an explanation of the Faith that is in you." So, it's my duty, I think, to do so when asked. These are great questions to try to answer because they allow a testimony of what is in the heart of Christians to their wonderful Muslim brothers and sisters.
Not everyone can always give the in-depth explanation: Faith may be hard to explain in intellectual terms, but easy to have. Even a child can have it, perhaps a child best of all.
Okay, thank you so much to anyone still reading or anyone who reads in the future! I'll try to answer any follow up questions, if there are any.
May the Living and Merciful God, Who enlightens hearts and minds, show us the way to love and understand Him and each other.
impressive, Jeff, but in the previous post when I was explaning, I was answering the questions:
"What kind of Man is this that the wind and the seas obey him"? You can guess the answer to that question! Or "What manner of man is this that pretends to forgive people's sins?" Again, you can guess the answer!
about my questions:
for question one, i asked that on purpose because we both know that trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the holy book, yet it's a very fundamental belief
about Christ saying that he is from God, how shall I say, I have to say that I believe that christ is the spirit of God, and His word, but he is not God (in my belief), so we both have no problem in "who has seen me has seen the father" part!
as for the holy spirit part, I will reply next time because I think my post will be too long!
I am impressed myself that you know that the same thing is written in songs of prophet david (pbuh), however, if you read the whole verse-which am sure you did- you will notice again that he is speaking of himself, and it mentions that "bulls" or "dogs" surrounding him, now I dont think a christian would want to say that Jesus did call the people who were around him in crucification bulls or dogs, on the contrary! he prayed for them and asked God to forgivethem! and if David was speaking in the tongue of Jesus, then its Jesus who is greving in that verse and he is the one who is calling those people Dogs n bulls
about Jesus saying "I and my father are one" here's the verse:
"And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
John 10 : 23-30
now I don't think that should used as an evidence to validate trinity, because when I read further in the John, I found this, which explains what jesus meant by saying that he and the father are one :
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."
John 17 : 20-22
I guess what am trying to say is clear to you, jeff, so "I and the father are one" cannot be used to validate trinity, nor that he is a God. if the above verses mean that Jesus is God, then all human beings are Gods as well! which can't be true ofcourse!
I am very pleased that we got here someone like you, and I am sure that this thread is benefitial to all the readers, muslims and christians, and If i went wrong in anythin, then may God forgive me, for I don't know :)
Great questions as usual, Braiki! I really admire the fact that you have taken the time to learn something about Christianity. It's particularly astute of you to focus on the Trinity and call it "very fundamental". This is something that some Muslims sometimes misunderstand about us. The Trinity is not an optional extra for us. It's right at the heart of our Faith. No Trinity, no Christianity. Christianity without the Trinity is like Islam without the Quran. I think you have grasped this well.
Sorry that I didn't pay enough attention to your very good point about the difference in the prophets. Christians would usually refer to this kind of thing as "charisms", meaning "gifts." Different prophets had different gifts; the miracles they performed had different "flavors" as it were. And Christ's miracles were characteristically healing miracles. So far, so good.
It's a good point and worth thinking about, but I don't find it convincing in the end. Here's why. Remember, the works of Christ I cited in my quote were: Christ calming the storm at sea and Christ forgiving sins. The first one is not a healing miracle. And the interesting thing about it is that Christ doesn't act like the prophets who did miracles. When a prophet does a miracle, he asks God to do it. Jesus speaks with His own authority, though. He doesn't ask God to still the waves. He doesn't even say that God has commanded Him to still the waves. He says, "Be still!" And they are still. The Apostles were not amazed because He made the storm quiet. They were amazed by how He did it. By commanding on His own authority. That's why they said, "What kind of a man is this that the wind and the waves obey Him?" God commands the wind and the waves. Not men. Men can ask God, but not command. Jesus commands.
My point about Christ's miracle of healing the man who could not walk is not the healing. Remember, what bothered the Jewish crowd was not the healing. What bothered them was that He was forgiving sins. And He wasn't praying that they be forgiven. He was simply declaring Himself that they were forgiven. "Only God can forgive sins," they said. Braiki can forgive sins against Braiki perhaps. But Braiki can't simply on his own authority declare that now all somebody else's sins that have nothing to do with him are all forgiven. And Jesus didn't argue and say, "No, some men can forgive sins." He proves He has the power to forgive sins Himself by healing. Not by praying for healing or claiming that God wants the man healed. But simply by commanding on His own authority, "Get up and walk!"
Now on the "one with the Father" point, again I think what you say is reasonable. But it's only reasonable if we look at those verses in isolation. The same John that is the author of the Gospel you quote from explains at the beginning of the Gospel that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and lived with us." And remember that Jesus in John's Gospel claims the Name of God, "I AM", for Himself. It was perfectly clear to the Jews what He meant because they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy. And the same John has St. Thomas call Jesus, "My Lord and my God," which Jesus accepts.
So, "I and the Father are One," must be read in the context of all those other things in the Gospel to understand its meaning. If you read all the various quotes I've mentioned together, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Christ is not the Father, but He is God. And the Holy Spirit is also God, but not the same person as the Father or the Son. So, you have God and you know He is One. But you also have Three Persons in that One God. The doctrine is there, though it's not in a single verse by itself and it's not called "Trinity".
It's no accident that historically the overwhelming majority of people who have called themselves Christians are Trinitarians.
I'm not sure how to answer the part about Christ's quotation of the Psalm, because I don't know exactly what you mean. I don't think Christians believe that David (or whoever wrote that Psalm) was in a trance when he wrote it and was only talking about the Messiah. It has a meaning of its own for the time. But it also has a prophetic meaning, which is why Christ quoted it. The primary meaning is the Just Man who is surrounded by his enemies. But it also foreshadows the Cross in striking ways. However on the "dogs and bulls"... I don't think anyone, Jewish or Christian or atheist, has ever intepreted to mean that David was literally surrounded by animals. Just that the people surrounding him were acting like dogs and bulls. And that's a good description of the crowd around the Cross, shouting and mocking. They had something to be forgiven for! :-D
Perhaps I haven't understood you rightly, though. I'm sure you will correct me if so and I can try again!
One thing that might help with the idea of Scripture interpretation: Catholic, Orthodox and other traditional Christians don't interpret Scripture by itself. We believe in Scripture and Tradition together. The Church reading and understanding Scripture is like a family reading letters from the great-grandfather. The family understands the letters in a way the outsider can't because the family has been told all sorts of things and they understand the whole context and meaning and the inner life of the letters. Scripture belongs to the Church like those letters belong to the family. Of course, if a Catholic looked at Scripture and thought it simply couldn't be honestly read as the Church reads it, then he might stop believing what the Church taught about it. But then he would lose his faith and not be a Catholic anymore. So, I do think I am giving the most natural and most reasonable interpretation of Scripture and I tell you my reasons. But in the end, we believe that this is what Scripture means because the Church teaches it. In fact, we accept the Scriptures because the Church tells us to.
Great discussion and I look forward to anything more from you!
One thing I want to add. My approach to this discussion or debate is not to say "Muslims are wrong and Christians are right." I am approaching it more like, "This is what we Christians believe and this is why we believe it." That keeps the door open for a deeper understanding, even when agreement is so unlikely as to be almost impossible.
I'm not trying to tell anyone they have to take the same approach...I don't mind someone trying to persuade me! But I try to avoid criticism of Islam because I don't think it's productive and it's not the point. Not for me, anyway. I like to explain rather than argue against, if you see what I mean.
I agree with you, christ was not always quoted asking for God's help, yet, I found this:
38
So Jesus, perturbed again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay across it.
39
Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the dead man's sister, said to him, "Lord, by now there will be a stench; he has been dead for four days."
40
Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?"
41
So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, "Father, 8 I thank you for hearing me.
John 11:38-41
It is talking about Christ's miracle of raising the dead man, he thanked God for listening to him. which means (to the reader) that Jesus asked God, and God listened to him!
and if we go further in the verse:
42
I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me."
43
And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice, 9 "Lazarus, come out!"
44
The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth. So Jesus said to them, "Untie him and let him go."
now the last three lines show (to me atleast) that Jesus always needed God to listen to him.. but this time he thanked him loudly so that they hear him to believe that God sent him!
about the jews wanting to stone him for blasphemy, lets together read the verse:
31
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him
32
but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33
"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods" '?
35
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came and Scripture cannot be broken
36
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
John 10:31-36
as we see, the jews accused him of claiming to be a God, but Jesus didn't say "why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said "I am God" ", but he said "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"
Jesus didn't confirm what they accused him for, plus, as Jesus said, God himself called others gods (note its with a small g not a capital G) but that didn't make them Gods, because, and I think you know that there's a big difference between god and God in translation, if you don't know what I'm talking about then tell me and I shall explain...
I have read the verse where you said that Jesus said Yahweh which means "I am"... the bible I read is in arabic and it has a totally diferent meaning! not meaning that he is God, and in the same verse, Jesus himself states that he's a man who's heard from God, lets read the verse, however:
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
......
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:37-58
the last line, in my arabic bible, which is translated directly from the original languages, he says "before Abrahim existed, I have existed" also the translation in english can have the same meaning, I know that Yahweh means "I am" in hebrew, but if you read the whole context, its obvious that the translation in arabic is more accurate..
about the Psalms, I think I understood you wrong, I thought u were saying that the verse describes Jesus and its forseen what he would say, I got confused there, its my fault, I apologize :)
sheik-al-Tort
05-10-06, 11:16 PM
There is little point in discussing this. It won't change fundamental beliefs.
I believe Jesus was the Son of God - you don't.
You believe Mohammed is a sacred prophet. I don't,I think he was a politician
As these are our starting points, I fail to see what the point of discussing the Trinity is.
Live and let live - at leat we believe in the same God, though my view may be different than yours on His sensitivity to insults
I agree with you, christ was not always quoted asking for God's help, yet, I found this:
John 11:38-41
It is talking about Christ's miracle of raising the dead man, he thanked God for listening to him. which means (to the reader) that Jesus asked God, and God listened to him!
and if we go further in the verse:
now the last three lines show (to me atleast) that Jesus always needed God to listen to him.. but this time he thanked him loudly so that they hear him to believe that God sent him!
about the jews wanting to stone him for blasphemy, lets together read the verse:
John 10:31-36
as we see, the jews accused him of claiming to be a God, but Jesus didn't say "why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said "I am God" ", but he said "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"
Jesus didn't confirm what they accused him for, plus, as Jesus said, God himself called others gods (note its with a small g not a capital G) but that didn't make them Gods, because, and I think you know that there's a big difference between god and God in translation, if you don't know what I'm talking about then tell me and I shall explain...
I have read the verse where you said that Jesus said Yahweh which means "I am"... the bible I read is in arabic and it has a totally diferent meaning! not meaning that he is God, and in the same verse, Jesus himself states that he's a man who's heard from God, lets read the verse, however:
John 8:37-58
the last line, in my arabic bible, which is translated directly from the original languages, he says "before Abrahim existed, I have existed" also the translation in english can have the same meaning, I know that Yahweh means "I am" in hebrew, but if you read the whole context, its obvious that the translation in arabic is more accurate..
about the Psalms, I think I understood you wrong, I thought u were saying that the verse describes Jesus and its forseen what he would say, I got confused there, its my fault, I apologize :)
I'm not sure why it's significant that your Bible is translated from the original. All Bibles nowadays are translated from the original! And the vast majority translate the words as I AM, whether they are believing Christians or not. That is because the Greek words Christ uses are ἐγώ εἰμι. When God declares His name in the Old Testament as I AM He uses the same words: ἐγώ εἰμι. This is the Septuagint translation made in Egypt by the Greek-speaking Jews themselves before the birth of Christ. The meaning of the words ἐγώ εἰμι when they stand by themselves is simply I AM.
All the ancient Greek writers, who understood Greek better than any of us, translated the words as I AM. All of them understood Christ to be identifying Himself with the Divinity. Christ uses it again at the time of His arrest: ἐγώ εἰμι! Where is Jesus of Nazareth? And He answers: ἐγώ εἰμι! They fall to the ground on their faces!
So, the translation "I have existed" is a weak one with little support. And anyway, I don't know where "before Abraham existed, I have existed" gets you. Jesus is asked how He could have seen Abraham (who lived more than a thousand years before) and Jesus says that the way He saw Abraham is: He existed before Abraham existed! Well, that's a strange answer for a mere man! Especially as an answer to the question Did you see Abraham! Jeff didn't see Abraham, because I didn't exist before him. Did Braiki exist before Abraham and see him?
No, we have to put the two uses of ἐγώ εἰμι I AM together with the other things I mentioned, the beginning of John's Gospel (where John says, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God) and Thomas seeing Him after the Resurrection and calling Him "My Lord and my God" without contradiction.
The conversation you pointed out leading up to this point still ends with the Jews trying to kill him. Saying "I existed before Abraham existed" (if you translate it that way) didn't seem to calm them down at all! looool No, the conversation with the Jews goes: Jews: You claim to be God. Jesus: But the Bible even calls you "gods". So why get upset if I WHO AM DIFFERENT FROM YOU call myself God's Son? Then He explains that He existed before Abraham and claims God's name! The Jews understood well then, just as the Christians understand now, what Christ was saying.
Jesus almost never answers questions directly. He leads people to think things through for themselves. This is His style of discourse throughout the Gospels.
No, no, Jesus' two titles are Son of Man and Son of God. That means He is Man in KIND, but also God in KIND.
As far as Christ's use of prayer, well, of course it is proper for the Son, who proceeds from the Father and gets His being from Him should pray and do the Will of the Father. But the point is not that Christ was NOT doing God's will but that He often doesn't act like a man requesting something from God. He speaks with a tone of command and authority, "Be still!" and "Your sins are forgiven." And this provokes shock in the people around Him who see Him as acting, not like a prophet, but like God. The shocked people, I think, understand Him correctly. Moses doesn't forgive sins, because only God can forgive sins. But Jesus forgives sins. The fact that sometimes He requests and sometimes He commands doesn't alter the fact: Jesus acts like more than a mere prophet. Because a mere prophet NEVER commands without reference to God! Guess why? Because then PEOPLE WOULD THINK HE WAS MAKING HIMSELF GOD.
And that's what they thought at the time. Correctly.
okay jeff, we should continue the Debate here, even tho I should've open this thread earlier!
I will get back you as soon as I can
Max Payne
17-10-06, 01:54 AM
Anyway, good look to you all in this debate and hope you (and I) will learn more about the trinity.
Okay, Braiki! See you when you get some time...
Braiki, you are a worthy adversary! I admire your mind and your seriousness and it's a real pleasure to talk with you. But, we still disagree! Did you guess? looool!
Only What Jesus Said?
You say you are only interested in what Jesus said, not what others said about Him. I'm not sure this works very well in interpreting a text, especially this text.
Why should we accept what John reports about what Jesus said, but not about what Jesus did? Why shouldn't we accept John's witness about Jesus' words, Jesus' deeds, and Jesus' teaching? If you don't trust what John says about Jesus' teaching, why should you accept that the words he reports are actually Jesus' words? He doesn't say he was present at the "I AM" conversation. Maybe some of the words he reports of Jesus are accurate and others are not. Either John is a reliable witness of Jesus' teaching, deeds and words, or he is not.
I think the whole debate makes little sense if we just choose which things we want to believe from the Gospel and which we do not. And in fact, most Muslims I have talked with about these subjects take the position that the Gospels are corrupted and whatever conflicts with Islamic teaching is a distortion or addition. This makes more sense to me than accepting the "I AM" conversation, but isolating it from the rest.
So, when I read the opening of John's Gospel, saying that the Word WAS God, I accept this as Jesus' teaching as much as I do the words reported by John. I interpret them all together. John testifies that he was "the disciple that Jesus loved," in other words, that they were like brothers, extremely close. He knew how Jesus talked and what He meant and what Jesus' teaching was better than Braiki, because he knew Jesus and he knew Him intimately. Jesus taught the Apostles His doctrine, this we know from His words because He commissioned them to go out into the World and teach in His Name. That's what John is doing when he describes the nature of Christ.
Now, what about this "I AM" text? Should we interpret it by itself, or does it stand alone? I think it's reasonable to ask whether Jesus used words like the ones He uses here in other places. Don't you think so?
I found this a long time ago on an Islamic website:
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/primsourcisl.html it's in the section called "Tafsir".
Now, I can't say if this interpretation of the Muslim way of dealing with the Qur'an is text correct or not; you will know better than me. But it seems to me that using the some words of Jesus to clarify other words and using other described events to clarify His words is a similar approach to the first principle of reading all the Quran together, not in pieces --ayat clarifies ayat. Using John's presentation of Jesus' teaching is similar to that principle, too, and also similar to the second one--the hadith principle--since John is an apostle and a close friend of Jesus.
Ego Eimi and Ho On--Different?
Yes, the point about Ego Eimi vs. Ho On is a reasonable one. But I think the difference that appears on the surface quickly disappears if you take a careful look.
First, you are half right about the Bible and Greek. Remember that most of the Bible, the huge first part, is the Jewish scriptures. The original language is Hebrew (with a tiny section in Chaldean.) But, as I said, most Jews didn't live in Palestine after the Babylonian Exile. Most lived in places like Iraq and Egypt. Most couldn't speak or read Hebrew well. The ones that lived in the Mediterranean area outside Palestine spoke Greek. They translated the Bible for themselves into Greek long before Christ--that's called "The Septuagint".
The NEW Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. The original Bible texts here are Greek. This includes the words of Jesus that we are speaking of.
Okay, let's look at the Septuagint (the old Jewish Greek version) in which God reveals His Name. It's at Exodus 3: 14 in the Old Testament.
Here is the Greek translation the Jews themselves made from Hebrew:
Here is a standard English translation of that verse:
Can you read Greek letters? They are easy, not too different from English letters. Count words with me. Find words 7 though 10 in the Greek: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. If you change it into English letters it could read "ego eimi Ho on." See? Both our words are there! Ego eimi and Ho on. loooool! Then look at words 18 and 19: Your words again by themselves: ὁ ὤν (Ho on), alone this time.
God tells His Name twice, in a long form first and then a short form. In English it's "I AM WHO I AM" and then just "I AM". (You can say "existed" if you want, I'm not fussing about translations now.)
The point is: ego eimi and ho on are TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF SAYING THE SAME THING. And they are BOTH PARTS OF GOD'S NAME as He revealed it. When you start the long form, I AM WHO I AM, you start with "ego eimi." Ego eimi means something like "I am"... Ho on means something like "Who I am". It looks different if you don't speak Greek, but it's only a tiny grammar difference to put a relative pronoun in there: "Who".
And in Hebrew it's even more obvious it's the same. "I AM WHO I AM" IS "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." "I AM" by itself is "YHWH". You can see the similarity, it's just two forms of the same word both of which God uses as His Nam.
Now the first part, I AM WHO I AM, Ego eimi Ho on, is really considered by the Jews one of the Names of God, equivalent in holiness to just I AM, Ho on. Wikipedia is not the best source in the world, but it's easy to find and it's something, so here is their discussion of this issue to start you off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
It says: "I am that I am (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה, pronounced ''Ehyeh asher ehyeh') is the sole response used in (Exodus 3:14) when Moses asked for God's name. It is one of the most famous verses in the Hebrew Bible."
"One of the most famous verses in the Hebrew Bible." Exactly.
Think about it. If somebody says to you, "In the Name of Allah...." and then stops, what will you fill in for the blanks? Is there any doubt at all? You will fill in "the Compassionate, the Merciful." Right? There is no second choice, really.
And if someone says to a Greek-speaking Jew (most of them spoke Greek) of the time of Jesus, "Ego eimi..." they know exactly what He is talking about and they know exactly what comes next, "Ho on." One of the most famous, perhaps, THE most famous single thing in the Bible for the Jews. If a Jew believed that someone was making themselves God--this is the Jews accusation against Jesus--and made the accusation and then the person ended his answer with "Ego eimi," they would know exactly what he was implying: "Yes, I am God."
This is what I am saying: If a Jew at the time asked you, Braiki, who you were, and you started answering him by saying solemnly, "Ego eimi," he would go for the nearest rock to stone you because you were clearly claiming the Name of God for yourself.
Why not Ho on, instead of Ego eimi? Well, I don't think it makes any difference. But there are several possibilities. Maybe because the Jews didn't ever even say, YHWH, or Ho on. Maybe because Ho on by itself is what God tells Moses to tell the Israelites, but Ego eimi Ho on is God's whole Name for Himself...it's the first answer He gives Moses when Moses asks for His Name.
But maybe the best answer is that the Jews got so furious with Jesus when He began saying Ego eimi that they didn't let Him finish. They immediately went for Him to stone Him again.
.................................................. ................
Ego eimi--Tafsir Treatment by the Principle of 'Ayat Explains Ayat.'
Let me try this principle on Ego eimi.
Is Ego eimi just a regular phrase? Or is it a Word of Power? A Word of extraordinary Power? A Word of Divine Power and assertion of Divinity?
Well, there is another word of Jesus, since His words are what you are most interested in. It's the only other time Jesus says "Ego eimi" by itself, with nothing following. And the only other time He declares Himself and explains Who He is with those words. And it's the same Apostle writing, John, who wrote the "I AM" passage we are discussing. So it's a great tafsir! Passage clarifies and explains passage, verse clarifies verse, ayat reveals the meaning of ayat.
This is John 18:4-6. Jesus is being arrested in the Garden the night before He died. The soldiers and guards are approaching Him to take Him. He is with others and the soldiers want to know in the dark which one is Jesus. When Jesus knows what they are doing and sees them coming with lanterns and torches in the dark. He goes out to them. "Whom are you looking for?", He asks.
"Jesus the Nazorean," they say. And Jesus says, "I AM he."
Now in English we have to say "I am HE." But in Greek you don't say it that way. You say, "I am." And what are the exact Greek words Jesus uses? "Ego eimi."
John reports Jesus' words; John reports what happened next. If you trust one, you should trust both. And what happens next is, " When he said to them, "I AM," they turned away and fell to the ground."
Not a very reasonable way to act if these are just ordinary words, is it? But if they are a Divine claim, it makes perfect sense. They are temporarily overcome. They are faced with the Power and the Truth of Jesus claim. They do what Jews do only before God and before no one else. They fall to the ground and worship. And they turn away because no man on his own power can look on the Face of God and live, as the Bible tells us.
Is there an alternative explanation? Sure, we can make one. We can say that they were all sick after eating a bad dinner and they turned away embarrassed while they were throwing up. But I think the Christians' explanation of the Bible passage is the only really good one.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"
Well, yes the Jews at the end of the conversation COULD have been wanting to stone Him at the end of the conversation for a different reason than they had at the beginning. But not all prophets got killed and stoned. Ezekiel wasn't. John the Baptist wasn't killed by Jews, but by Idumaeans. Amos wasn't stoned and killed. Neither was Elijah. Moses wasn't killed. The list goes on and on.
And of course, the Jews listen to Jesus with respect very often in the Gospels. The only time they are moved to try to stone Him is when, according to them, He has claimed to be God. That's how they start the conversation, that's how they end it. It's POSSIBLE that they suddenly developed a different reason or that they just didn't like him in general. But it's not the natural interpretation. ESPECIALLY in light of our tafsir!
No the more I study and pray over this passage, the more clear it becomes to me: Jesus is claiming the Divine Name because He Himself is the Great I AM.
Additional Matters
Just a few additional points...
Jesus often speaks in such a way as to LEAD the mind that is open, rather than to force it with argument or contradiction, that's true. But it's not always true. There are many times he speaks to explain or to contradict or to chastise. My point is that if YOU think He is clearly explaining that He is a Man Only and Not God, it's hard to understand why He would choose to say verses that YOU think are clear explanation that He is a Man, but not clearly explain that He is Not God.
Remember when you are looking at verses about Jesus being human that Christians claim that He is 100% Truly God and 100% Truly Man. A passage in which Jesus prays doesn't establish that Jesus is not God. Men pray and Jesus behaves like a Man.
And remember that Christians do not say that the Eternal Father became man, but the Eternal Son, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Even in eternity, the Son always does what the Father tells Him, always asks the Father for everything, always receives everything from Him. This is the nature of God's own life. It is perfectly natural when the Eternal Son of God, the Word that existed before all ages becomes Man that He should continue to act as He did in Heaven.
*** I see that there are a few points I'm not covering right now, but I think these are the main ones. Let's see if we can limit this to one more exchange and then you can have the final word. We can turn to another topic and then sometime we can come back to this another time if you like. What do you say?
.................................................. .............
Jeff, you got me wrong there, I didn't mean it that way, I meant I am focusing on what Jesus said, Because most of what he says is what christianity really based on!, especially for the pillar of christianity: the trinity!
and Why wouldn't there be a simple and a clear statement (like the first commandment) of Jesus claiming to be God! if Jesus ever claimed to be God so clearly, the followers would have quoted that! because it's the pillar of christianity as I mentioned above! and we all know that there are many many christinas that recognize Jesus as the Son of God ONLY, not being God himself! I have chated with many who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but Not God himself! I haven't really asked them if they believe in trinity or not, but I guess recognizing Jesus as the son of God ONLY means not believing in Trinity! yet they're still christians :os
now, back to our beloved subject, "I AM" :D
you said in a previous post, that only Jesus who used that word, and I said many used that word, you said that word indicated that Jesus was saying that he is God, and I said it's not, lets see this verse from the bible:
in Greek:
9.alloi elegon oti outoV estin: alloi elegon, ouci, alla omoioV autw estin. ekeinoV elegen oti ego eimi.
John 9:9
let's read it in english:
7
and (jesus) said to him, "Go wash 3 in the Pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see.
8
His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, "Isn't this the one who used to sit and beg?"
9
Some said, "It is," but others said, "No, he just looks like him." He said, "I am."
John 9:7-9
Ooops! someone else said Ego Eimi so, someone else was claiming to be God ? I don't think so..
did they stone him after saying Ego Eimi ? the bible doesn't show that!
Did they accuse him of blasphemy ? no they didn't :)
this proves my few points, which are:
- Many people said "Ego Eimi", it wasn't a forbidden word
- the Word "Ego Eimi" doesn't imply claiming to be God at all.
- Ego Eimi isn't HO ON, and saying Ego Eimi, isn't similar to saying HO ON.
now, about Jesus' quote: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"
what you're saying (atleast what I understood from your words) opposes what jesus says!, he says clearly that Jerusalem kills the prophets and stone those who sent to Jerusalem, true that MANY prophets were not killed, but some were killed, and Jesus knows better than me and you, right ;)
Jeff, you got me wrong there, I didn't mean it that way, I meant I am focusing on what Jesus said, Because most of what he says is what christianity really based on!, especially for the pillar of christianity: the trinity!
The doctrine of the Trinity is a formal way of stating the Truth. Christ came to DO something primarily, not to teach. As you have pointed out yourself, He often speaks elliptically, rather than directly. To draw the minds of His followers gently to the Truth, not to force them. To say, "Hello everybody, I'm God," every time He met someone would have been impossible for people to understand or accept without preparation. And God wanted to come among us and live as a Man to lead us to the Truth. Not to drive us nuts! If He just wanted to show Himself as God, He wouldn't needed to have come as a Man and confuse everything! :p
I think his teaching on Who He is is quite clear from the Bible, though. But whatever He said, those who have a different view can always argue with it and say, "He didn't mean this; He must have meant that!" "I and the Father are One; Whoever sees Me sees the Father," for example seems to me exceedingly clear. But it's POSSIBLE, if you want to, to come up with another explanation, as you do. If He has simply said, "I am God," many people would say, "No, He just meant, 'I am A god," that He is god-like," or "He only meant that God appears in Him in a wondeful way!" There is nothing that He could have said that people wouldn't dispute the meaning of.
That the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God, distinct, but not separate is clear to me when you read all the texts together. If you accept all those things, you have the doctrine of the Trinity.
and Why wouldn't there be a simple and a clear statement (like the first commandment) of Jesus claiming to be God! if Jesus ever claimed to be God so clearly, the followers would have quoted that!
But that's what we are arguing about! Ego eimi! To me, it looks like the natural and only reading of the words. And His followers DO quote it! As I pointed out, His message about Who He was came across loud and clear to the Jews at the time. "You have claimed to be God, you are making yourself God!" And the same message came across clearly to His followers: That's why Thomas calls Him "My Lord and my God," a passage you do not deal with and which Jesus does not reject.
To you, I understand, it looks like something unclear that needs further explanation and it looks like Christians are being unreasonable. To us, it looks perfectly clear and like those nothing will satisfy those who are looking for a reason to "disprove." Who is right? I doubt a debate can settle that! :p
because it's the pillar of christianity as I mentioned above! and we all know that there are many many christinas that recognize Jesus as the Son of God ONLY, not being God himself! I have chated with many who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but Not God himself! I haven't really asked them if they believe in trinity or not, but I guess recognizing Jesus as the son of God ONLY means not believing in Trinity! yet they're still christians :os
Are people who call themselves Muslims and recognize another prophet after Muhammad Muslims? I have talked with such people--the Ahmadiyya. There are millions of them.
Are people who Believe that Ali was an incarnation of Allah and that women have no souls Muslims? There are many such people--Alawites.
There are "liberal" Muslims who question the abiding value of certain verses in the Quran, such as the one about beating women. "It was only for it's limited time," says one Muslim in yesterday's Washington Post. Can you think the Quran contains limited rules whose value is finished and still be a Muslim?
Are these people Muslim just because they say, "I am a Muslim"?
Christianity exists in a heavily secularized environment. Many people who call themselves Christians know nothing about it. They just mean that they go to church sometimes and they feel free to define Christianity for themselves. One of my sisters is like that. She says, "I am a Christian," but she just decides what that means for herself. She means, "I grew up around churchgoers and the Bible is my religious book. I associate Jesus with Holiness."
She says she is a Christian. She is not-- :( --a Christian, despite what she thinks! God bless her, she is maskeena...
But of course the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves Christians confess Christ as God. Can you be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God? Well, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are united on this question--No. If you don't believe that Jesus is God, you are not a Christian. Every Sunday, all Catholics say, "I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally Begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not Made, one in Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made." This is our confession of Faith that all Catholics make every Sunday.
All the converts coming to the Faith all over the World everyday believe that Christ is God made Man who died for our sins!
So, I'm sorry if you meet people who say that they are Christians and don't believe Jesus is God. They are just confused, secularized people who don't know much and think they can invent their own religion. For us modern Westerners, unfortunately, it is hard to accept anything from outside ourselves! It's a sickness...
now, back to our beloved subject, "I AM" :D
you said in a previous post, that only Jesus who used that word
I didn't say that. It's as common in Greek as it is in English.
, and I said many used that word, you said that word indicated that Jesus was saying that he is God, and I said it's not, lets see this verse from the bible:
in Greek:
John 9:9
let's read it in english:
John 9:7-9
Ooops! someone else said Ego Eimi so, someone else was claiming to be God ? I don't think so..
did they stone him after saying Ego Eimi ? the bible doesn't show that!
Did they accuse him of blasphemy ? no they didn't :)
No, ha, ha! The point isn't that if somebody says, Are you the man I saw yesterday and you say, "Ego eimi; I am." that everyone will think you are God. Of course not!
The point is that if someone says, "You have claimed to be God," and you say, "Before Abraham ever was, Ego Eimi," those words are a claim of Divinity, because they famously begin God's first announcement of His Name in the Bible and every Jew knows them.
And the other point you miss: when Jesus answers the question of His identity, the soldiers turn and fall to the ground overcome. That answer is a Word of Power and a claim of the Divine Name.
this proves my few points, which are:
- Many people said "Ego Eimi", it wasn't a forbidden word
We agree...
- the Word "Ego Eimi" doesn't imply claiming to be God at all.
We disagree. In the context of answering the charge that He was God and the claim to have existed Before Abraham, it clearly does.
- Ego Eimi isn't HO ON, and saying Ego Eimi, isn't similar to saying HO ON.
We disagree. Ego eimi means I am. Ho on means the One Who I am. They are both used to translate the Hebrew of God's Name in its first form which is "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh". They are the same: both forms of I am and they go together in God's first announcement of His Name: "Ego eimi ho on." Check the references I gave, you will see!
now, about Jesus' quote: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"
what you're saying (atleast what I understood from your words) opposes what jesus says!, he says clearly that Jerusalem kills the prophets and stone those who sent to Jerusalem, true that MANY prophets were not killed, but some were killed, and Jesus knows better than me and you, right ;)
I'm sorry! I didn't understand this one. :( Maybe it's my fault. Can you explain it again?
All I said was that Jesus words of mourning don't indicate that the Jews kill all prophets or kill prophets for no particular reason or for any reason. There is a reason for wanting to kill them when you do! And the reason the Jews had in the conversation we are speaking about? Jesus claimed to be God.
Fine answers and questions as usual! Shall we continue or shall we go on to the eternal life question?
To say, "Hello everybody, I'm God," every time He met someone would have been impossible for people to understand or accept without preparation. And God wanted to come among us and live as a Man to lead us to the Truth. Not to drive us nuts! If He just wanted to show Himself as God, He wouldn't needed to have come as a Man and confuse everything!
Exactly, that's what Muslims and Jews say, Why would God confuse us ? to state that he's one in the Old Testament without mentioning the trinity in the Old Testament (and the New Testament, clearly). I mean the belief of trinity or atleast the concept is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, and I can use the OT as well in the method you mentioned, looking at Jesus' quotes, and him saying that He is not to oppose what the Old testament says, nor the prophets. but he came to fulfil what it's said about him, and is it mentioned anywhere that the messiah is gona be God himself ? nope! This supports my arguments about his quotes that he didn't claim to be God :)
I think his teaching on Who He is is quite clear from the Bible, though. But whatever He said, those who have a different view can always argue with it and say, "He didn't mean this; He must have meant that!" "I and the Father are One; Whoever sees Me sees the Father," for example seems to me exceedingly clear. But it's POSSIBLE, if you want to, to come up with another explanation, as you do. If He has simply said, "I am God," many people would say, "No, He just meant, 'I am A god," that He is god-like," or "He only meant that God appears in Him in a wondeful way!" There is nothing that He could have said that people wouldn't dispute the meaning of.
"Me and God are ONe" is explained better in the bible, and I didn't come up with my own explanations, Jesus Christ Himself explained it better when he said:
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
john 17:21-22
and Jesus Christ didn't say that "I am God", If the bible quotes him saying that, then I'd say you're right. again, its because we're debating on wether Jesus said that he is God or not.
But that's what we are arguing about! Ego eimi! To me, it looks like the natural and only reading of the words. And His followers DO quote it! As I pointed out, His message about Who He was came across loud and clear to the Jews at the time. "You have claimed to be God, you are making yourself God!" And the same message came across clearly to His followers: That's why Thomas calls Him "My Lord and my God," a passage you do not deal with and which Jesus does not reject.
To you, I understand, it looks like something unclear that needs further explanation and it looks like Christians are being unreasonable. To us, it looks perfectly clear and like those nothing will satisfy those who are looking for a reason to "disprove." Who is right? I doubt a debate can settle that!
but wait a minute, when Jesus said Ego Eimi, he wasn't replying the accusation of him being God, show me in the bible where the conversation goes like "you claim to be God" and Jesus replies to them and says "Ego Eimi" as you stated..
When Jews Accused him of blasphemy and claiming to be God, he didn't say Ego Eimi, no sir :) on the contrary, he says "God himself called you gods (in the book of psalms when God described the prophets) then why would you accuse me of blasphemy when I claim that I am the Son of God" again, he didn't say "when I said I am God", he said the "Son of God", and as I said Muslims don't have a problem of Jesus being the Son of God in the same sense that Adam is (and that's what Adam was called in the Bible as well)
In a previous post, you said:
This is what I am saying: If a Jew at the time asked you, Braiki, who you were, and you started answering him by saying solemnly, "Ego eimi," he would go for the nearest rock to stone you because you were clearly claiming the Name of God for yourself.
but then we both agreed that Ego Eimi was not a forbidden word. So when the soldiers came to Jesus, They din't ask him are you God? they didn't even ask him "Who Are you?" they asked him "are you Jesus" ? he said Ego Eimi! meaning "I am" as in yes its me! where does the claim of Divinty in this conversation!? If we both lived back in those days, I ask you, are you Jeff, you say "Ego Eimi" that wouldn't make me think that you are God or that you are claiming to be God :)
about the Jerusalem part; Prophet zachria was killed by stoning i think, and thats for a reason, but that reason was not because he claimed to be God, yet he was killed! So having the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, doesn't have to mean because he claimed to be God, they might've understood it that way though, that he was equating himself to God but no, he always said "you do not understand what I am saying". also, many QUOTES of Jesus christ in the bible like "only God is Good" and "you want to stone me; a man who's sent by God" and the quote I mentioned above when Jews accused him of blasphemy. many QUOTES of Jesus show clearly that he didn't claim to be God, and thats supported by the Old Testament in the context and also by Jesus saying:
17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
matt 5:17
and does trinity abolish the law or/and the prophets, YES it does :) ask anyone who reads/studies the Old Testament or the tanakh as Jews call it.
I guess I don't have anything further to say, so this thread may get locked and kept to benefit all who read it. And may God guide us all to the right path and compensate this for us in the hereafter.
Amen
monotheism
29-10-06, 04:55 PM
The Psalm goes on to say, "they have pierced my hands and my feet"
no it doesn't, guess you don't know Hebrew:
For example, Psalm 22:17 from the Hebrew Bible, when correctly translated, reads "They surrounded my hands and feet like a lion4," referring to King David being pursued by his enemies, who are often referred to as a lion (as in Psalms 7 and 17). Yet, when read out of context and mistranslated as "They pierced my hands and feet," as appears in Christian versions, the passage intentionally conjures up thoughts of Jesus.
This example demonstrates only one of the many verses that the missionaries twist and mistranslate to suit their purposes. Judaism has a response and an explanation for each such instance. The rule of thumb is to always ask: "Are these verses being read in context and with an accurate translation?" Sadly, most "Hebrew Christians" blindly accept the Christian interpretation without ever having heard or fully understood the Jewish view.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_hebrew_christian.html#f4
Fair enough, Braiki!
We still have complete disagreement on this topic, but I think you have the right to end it since you began it. Thanks for the debate!
no it doesn't, guess you don't know Hebrew:
I do find your exegesis unconvincing.
The Jews who translated the Septuagint didn't translate it that way...my guess is that the understanding of those seventy elders was at least as good as yours or as that of modern scholars!
I'd take the masoretic over the septuagint any day :)
The masoretic has "like a lion (ka-ari) my hand my feet", I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense. Some apologists sites say that the masoretic text is corrupt and the word ka-ari should be karu (to dig). Now the Dead Sea Scrolls have Kaaru, which isn't a word but is almost identical to Kaari, the difference being a vav instead of a yod. Karu doesn't have an aleph, so its missing a whole letter. But you can see the similarities of vav and yod below.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h113/Mogget77/hyod.gif yod
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h113/Mogget77/vav.gif vav
Anyway I don't see if David wanted the verse to say pierced why he didn't use naqav, rasta or daqar? But then again it is poetry.
monotheism
01-11-06, 05:39 PM
I do find your exegesis unconvincing.
The Jews who translated the Septuagint didn't translate it that way...my guess is that the understanding of those seventy elders was at least as good as yours or as that of modern scholars!
There is no basis in Jewish tradition to claim that it was Orthodox Jews who translated the Septuagint. See:
The Septuagint derives its name from Latin septuaginta interpretum versio, "translation of the seventy interpreters" (hence the abbreviation LXX). The Latin title refers to a legendary account in the spurious Letter of Aristeas of how seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the 3rd century BC to translate the Torah for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. In a later version of that legend narrated by Philo of Alexandria, although the translators were kept in separate chambers, they all produced identical versions of the text in seventy-two days. ... A version of this legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud (pages 9a-9b), which identifies fifteen specific unusual translations made by the scholars. Only two of these translations are found in the extant LXX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
If it were the same text, it would have all the same translations that the Talmud lists the one made by the 70 elders translation as having. Rather, this was a translation made by Christians to suit their heretical reading of the Hebrew Scripture. It was named after the episode in the Talmud in order to give it an air of legitimacy, but Orthodox Jews saw through that. Only the newly converted Christian pagans didn't.
Indeed, the Septuagint was never adopted by Orthodox Jews, who followed the translations (into Aramaic) of Yonasan ben Uziel and Onkelos. So my post re the twisted interpretation of Psalms 22 stands.
monotheism
01-11-06, 06:01 PM
Kara, it makes sense. It's saying that David's hands and feet were surrounded like a lion would surround hands and feet. Nothing too difficult. And I find it utterly absurd to suggest as a "solution" to this "problem" that in the holy Masoretic text a yud was somehow mistaken for a vav. All the texts have a yud, and all the Jewish Sages of the ages, including the Talmud, accepted that text (along with the rest of the Masoretic text).
And I find it utterly absurd to suggest as a "solution" to this "problem" that in the holy Masoretic text a yud was somehow mistaken for a vav. All the texts have a yud, and all the Jewish Sages of the ages, including the Talmud, accepted that text (along with the rest of the Masoretic text).
Well that would have to be taken up with the Christian apologists who say that it is wrong in the Masoretic text. Quite frankly as I see it, the aplogosist who say this don't have a leg to stand on. But it was only background on how they twist it to say pierced instead of like a lion.
The Masoretic text has yod, so therefore it is a yod.
There is no basis in Jewish tradition to claim that it was Orthodox Jews who translated the Septuagint. See:
If it were the same text, it would have all the same translations that the Talmud lists the one made by the 70 elders translation as having. Rather, this was a translation made by Christians to suit their heretical reading of the Hebrew Scripture. It was named after the episode in the Talmud in order to give it an air of legitimacy, but Orthodox Jews saw through that. Only the newly converted Christian pagans didn't.
Indeed, the Septuagint was never adopted by Orthodox Jews, who followed the translations (into Aramaic) of Yonasan ben Uziel and Onkelos. So my post re the twisted interpretation of Psalms 22 stands.
Translated by Jews in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, your Wikipedia source points out. Philo and Josephus claimed Divine Inspiration for it! Oh, well, it might not have been exactly Seventy elders, but we Christians didn't make that up!
The larger point is that from the Christian point of view, today's orthodox Judaism is hardly a "pure" continuation of "True" pre-Christian Judaism, but in part a continuation of pre-Christian Rabbinic Judaism and in part a reaction AGAINST Christianity. So questions like the reception of the Septuagint, the solidification of the Jewish canon of Scripture, and the interpretation of the Psalms have to be understood as reactions against Christianity, which Judaism was increasingly coming to define itself in opposition to.
In any case, the reading of the psalm to which you object is pre-Christian and Judaic in origin. That as well as the fact that the New Testament authors themselves understood the text that way, is for us very strong evidence that the psalm means what we Christians say it means. Simply saying, "that's not what the text says" or calling our reading "twisted" is tendentious and conclusory. My response is "Sez you! But of course it's the correct reading!" In other words, I simply reject your characterizations which you incorrectly present as unassailable.
As I point out in discussion with the Muslims, all our debates reveal predispositions and most tend not to be persuasive to outsiders. Which limits the usefulness of debate, I think.
Still and all, delightful to find myself discussing these matters with my Elder Brothers and Sisters. I don't want this to become a long-drawn out hassle for you, but I couldn't let what you said go entirely. Now that I've made my position clear, I'll let you folks have the last word. This does seem to be a digression of sorts from the theme of the thread.
monotheism
02-11-06, 05:36 PM
Translated by Jews in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, your Wikipedia source points out. Philo and Josephus claimed Divine Inspiration for it! Oh, well, it might not have been exactly Seventy elders, but we Christians didn't make that up!
It may well have been translated by Jews. That doesn't mean it's authoritative. Who said they were G-d fearing Jews, who followed Jewish tradition in their translation? They apparently were not, as Orthodox Jewry and Talmudic tradition doesn't recognise this translation, in contrast to that of Onkelos into Aramaic, which is regularly studied in Orthodox Jewish tradition. In any case, the claim that it is the same as the text translated by 70 elders is baseless.
The larger point is that from the Christian point of view, today's orthodox Judaism is hardly a "pure" continuation of "True" pre-Christian Judaism, but in part a continuation of pre-Christian Rabbinic Judaism and in part a reaction AGAINST Christianity. So questions like the reception of the Septuagint, the solidification of the Jewish canon of Scripture, and the interpretation of the Psalms have to be understood as reactions against Christianity, which Judaism was increasingly coming to define itself in opposition to.
"the solidification of the Jewish canon of Scripture"
The canon was set by Ezra long before Christianity, in approximately 350 BCE.
Indeed, Christianity deviated from Judaism, and therefore Orthodox Jews refused to follow favored Christian texts, the Septuagint included. So what?
And the word in Psalms is "like a lion," clearly, for anyone familiar with Hebrew. There is no such word "ka'ari" with the spelling kof aleph reish yud, the spelling in all Masoretic texts. It was only the ignorant pagans who fell for this blatant distortion.
In any case, the reading of the psalm to which you object is pre-Christian and Judaic in origin... In other words, I simply reject your characterizations which you incorrectly present as unassailable.
Where do you find such a reading of the Psalm before Christianity?
In other words, I simply reject your characterizations which you incorrectly present as unassailable.
Well, I know Hebrew, speak it fluently, and I'm telling you what it says. Learn Hebrew, and then you'll see what I'm saying. Until then, please don't presume things about Judaism.
I'm sorry, but the "please don't presume things about Judaism" line won't fly. Christianity and Judaism are related religions and they certainly "presume" or come to conclusions about each other. That's unavoidable.
You say:
"Who said the were G-d fearing Jews, who followed Jewish tradition in their translation? They apparently were not, as Orthodox Jewry and Talmudic tradition doesn't recognise this translation"
Well, you are entitled to interpret the "correct" line of Judaism as you wish. For us, the "correct" line of Judaism is Christianity and that which leads to it, of course. And the idea that all of Judaism or all of Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint is a tendentious interpretation meant to establish the bona fides of Rabbinic Judaism and refute those of Christianity. It's not simply "the truth" in some neutral way.
As your Wikipedia article points out, Septuagint readings were found at Qumran. So, when we are discussing whether your version of the Masoretic text is accurate, we have to take into account the possibility that it favored a reading or a textual variant preferred by the Rabbinic Jews as against Christianity which Rabbinic Judaism was now in the business of refuting. It may be that "foolish pagans" and "ignorant Christians" skewed things. It may also be that "wily and stubborn Pharisees" got it wrong. It depends on your point of view.
A reading of the psalm that is pre-Christian and in line with what we say? The Septuagint of course. That's what we're discussing.
It would be great to know Hebrew! And Arabic too! But the question about the text and its reading doesn't rest on a knowledge of Hebrew. It rests on the question of texts and textual traditions. That doesn't require a knowledge of Hebrew.
I had offered to let things lapse with a response from you and I don't mind doing that. But the notion that I should not discuss Judaism or the Psalms til I learn Hebrew is too absurd to let pass. Jews being Jews tend to favor readings and versions that favor Jews. Christians being Christians tend to favor those that favor Christians. Assuming a haughty air of superiority doesn't change that. I'm not attacking you for your reading. I'm disputing your insistence that no one who disagrees with you can possibly know what he is talking about.
And about those Septuagint-consonant readings found at Qumran, here is something interesting:
This was recently pointed out in the translation of the DSS into English by the scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich [The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Know Bible Translated for the First Time into English, HarperCollins:1999]. At the begining of Psalm 22 they say:
"Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' wheras the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'"!"(My emphasis) [p.519]
This is exceptionally strong data, from very strong scholars [e.g., Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame], that "like a lion" is NOT the original reading.
So, if someone changed the text, it was in the other direction...(smile)
and a bit more:
2. The textual witnesses line up historically like this:
* The earliest is the LXX, which has "they pierced"
* The next witness is Qumran, which has "they pierced"
* The next witness is Aquila's first edition, which is best explained as a transposition of letters from "they pierced"
* The next witness is the Peshitta, which has "they pierced"
* The next witnesses are A2/S/J, which have "they tied", which can be seen as a 'reasonable' mis-understanding from "they pierced"
* We don't get "like a lion" for centuries after these witnesses, and even then there are MT variants representing "they pierced"
* Later Jewish writers (e.g., Rashi) follow the MT (surprise, surprise), but one or two midrashic writers understand this as a verb, instead of "like a lion"
Here's the link...the first part is on the provenance and dating of the Septuagint, the second on the "lion/pierced" question.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html
Again, I'm happy to leave the polemics. I'm not even requiring any kind of admission from you. I'm happy for you to plug the "lion" angle and even to concede that it's something a reasonable person could be firmly convinced of, though I don't think it's the best interpretation myself. I quite see how a religious Jew would strongly favor the "lion" reading and be very much disinclined to allow the "pierced" one. It's a textual crux, a point of contention, something scholars argue about, as far as I can see.
But let's leave off the hostile stuff that sounds like, "I know better than you, you have no business arguing with me", okay? I quite see that it must be irritating for a Jew to have Christians saying to him something that sounds like, "You misunderstand your own religion. We understand it better than you do." But in some sense, that IS what Christians think! And, you know, the Muslims do the same to us! :p We just have to be patient and put up with it in order for there to be fruitful discussions. It shouldn't be any more offensive to say, "Your tradition chose a corrupt reading in order to escape the truth of Christianity" than it is to say, "Your tradition chose an ignorant pagan mess because it wanted to prove its absurd point about the Crucifixion."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.