Paul's limited understanding!

[Righttruth]

Paul knew about Christ being born of the virgin, he was writing to people who had already heard and accepted that truth into their hearts. The letters were to help them grow in the faith, to edify them.

Paul's abridged version of the gospel is: Christ was born of a woman, died on the cross and got resurrected. Nothing about Jesus' words.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Naturally, because he was interested in offering sugar coated candies.

Do you say that because he wrote a lot about love and happiness? You know...like life in the Kingdom...?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Paul's abridged version of the gospel is: Christ was born of a woman, died on the cross and got resurrected. Nothing about Jesus' words.

Everything Paul points to is Christ. The gospels specifically record Jesus's words, so you want every other book to say the same things? Like a record from a record player that skips? It makes no sense with four gospels that each book after should repeat the same thing, but that seems to be your issue.

Paul wrote the Epistles to the new churches of Rome, Galatia, Ephasus, Corinth, Phillipai, ect.

Maybe you do not realize what the Epistles are and what role Paul even had in his three missionary journey's. To me it is based on lack of knowledge and understanding, not because of knowledge. Can't you see that?

What even did Paul do in the New Testament? Do you really know?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Paul's abridged version of the gospel is: Christ was born of a woman, died on the cross and got resurrected. Nothing about Jesus' words.

Wow. And that is enough to fill all the Epistles of the New Testament?

You are completely wrong.

 

[nothead]

Paul's abridged version of the gospel is: Christ was born of a woman, died on the cross and got resurrected. Nothing about Jesus' words.

HAH. That is an infant's view bar none.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi AW, here's a bit more on "root", from some of my Greek Lexicons and an English Dictionary:

rhíza.
Secular Greek. This word means literally “root” of a plant, figuratively “foot” of a mountain, historically “founding” of a city, genealogically “origin” or “stem” of a family, cosmologically “origin” of things (i.e., the earth), and psychologically the soul as our “origin.” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 985). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

rhiza (ῥίζα, 4491) is used (a) in the natural sense, Matt. 3:10; 13:6, 21; Mark 4:6, 17, 11:20; Luke 3:9; 8:13; (b) metaphorically (1) of “cause, origin, source,” said of persons, ancestors, Rom. 11:16, 17, 18 (twice); of things, evils, 1 Tim. 6:10, RV, of the love of money as a “root” of all “kinds of evil” (marg., “evils”, KJV, “evil”); bitterness, Heb. 12:15; (2) of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; 22:16. Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 539). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.​

4491 ῥίζα [rhiza /hrid·zah/] n f. Apparently a primary word; TDNT 6:985; TDNTA 985; GK 4844; 17 occurrences; AV translates as “root” 17 times. 1 a root. 2 that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot. 3 metaph. offspring, progeny. Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

noun
1.
a part of the body of a plant that develops, typically, from the radicleand grows downward into the soil, anchoring the plant and absorbingnutriment and moisture.
2.
a similar organ developed from some other part of a plant, as one ofthose by which ivy clings to its support.
3.
any underground part of a plant, as a rhizome.
4.
something resembling or suggesting the root of a plant in position orfunction:
roots of wires and cables.
5.
the embedded or basal portion of a hair, tooth, nail, nerve, etc.
6.
the fundamental or essential part:
the root of a matter.
Synonyms: base, foundation, basic part, basic element.
7.
the source or origin of a thing:
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Synonyms: beginning, rise, fount, fountainhead, spring, wellspring;derivation, originator. Webster's Dictionary​

I'll be back with more later.

--David

 

[nothead]

Hi AW, here's a bit more on "root", from some of my Greek Lexicons and an English Dictionary:

rhíza.
Secular Greek. This word means literally “root” of a plant, figuratively “foot” of a mountain, historically “founding” of a city, genealogically “origin” or “stem” of a family, cosmologically “origin” of things (i.e., the earth), and psychologically the soul as our “origin.” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 985). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

rhiza (ῥίζα, 4491) is used (a) in the natural sense, Matt. 3:10; 13:6, 21; Mark 4:6, 17, 11:20; Luke 3:9; 8:13; (b) metaphorically (1) of “cause, origin, source,” said of persons, ancestors, Rom. 11:16, 17, 18 (twice); of things, evils, 1 Tim. 6:10, RV, of the love of money as a “root” of all “kinds of evil” (marg., “evils”, KJV, “evil”); bitterness, Heb. 12:15; (2) of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; 22:16. Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 539). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.​

4491 ῥίζα [rhiza /hrid·zah/] n f. Apparently a primary word; TDNT 6:985; TDNTA 985; GK 4844; 17 occurrences; AV translates as “root” 17 times. 1 a root. 2 that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot. 3 metaph. offspring, progeny. Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

noun
1.
a part of the body of a plant that develops, typically, from the radicleand grows downward into the soil, anchoring the plant and absorbingnutriment and moisture.
2.
a similar organ developed from some other part of a plant, as one ofthose by which ivy clings to its support.
3.
any underground part of a plant, as a rhizome.
4.
something resembling or suggesting the root of a plant in position orfunction:
roots of wires and cables.
5.
the embedded or basal portion of a hair, tooth, nail, nerve, etc.
6.
the fundamental or essential part:
the root of a matter.
Synonyms: base, foundation, basic part, basic element.
7.
the source or origin of a thing:
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Synonyms: beginning, rise, fount, fountainhead, spring, wellspring;derivation, originator. Webster's Dictionary​

I'll be back with more later.

--David

Getting to the roots of the word "root." Now try from Hebraic View. That's the ROOTFUL idea.

 

[St_Worm2]

Kittel makes these brief comments:

rhíza.
Later Judaism. The concept of Israel as God’s plant is common. The planting goes back to Abraham as its root. Israel is the race of the elect root. God will plant righteous Gentiles in Israel. The idea of the Messiah as the root of Jesse is also common. Some conclude from Isaiah 11:10 that it is the Gentiles that need the Messiah; Israel has the law. Philo does not refer to the Davidic shoot. For him the metaphor of the root is a stylistic device. Thus the Ten Commandments are the root of individual statutes. Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 986). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.​

Yours and His,
David

 

[nothead]

Kittel makes these brief comments:

rhíza.
Later Judaism. The concept of Israel as God’s plant is common. The planting goes back to Abraham as its root. Israel is the race of the elect root. God will plant righteous Gentiles in Israel. The idea of the Messiah as the root of Jesse is also common. Some conclude from Isaiah 11:10 that it is the Gentiles that need the Messiah; Israel has the law. Philo does not refer to the Davidic shoot. For him the metaphor of the root is a stylistic device. Thus the Ten Commandments are the root of individual statutes. Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 986). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.​

Yours and His,
David

HAH now we get down to original YHWH intent, communication in GENERAL concepts of metaphor. COOL.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Hi AW, here's a bit more on "root", from some of my Greek Lexicons and an English Dictionary:

rhíza.
Secular Greek. This word means literally “root” of a plant, figuratively “foot” of a mountain, historically “founding” of a city, genealogically “origin” or “stem” of a family, cosmologically “origin” of things (i.e., the earth), and psychologically the soul as our “origin.” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 985). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

rhiza (ῥίζα, 4491) is used (a) in the natural sense, Matt. 3:10; 13:6, 21; Mark 4:6, 17, 11:20; Luke 3:9; 8:13; (b) metaphorically (1) of “cause, origin, source,” said of persons, ancestors, Rom. 11:16, 17, 18 (twice); of things, evils, 1 Tim. 6:10, RV, of the love of money as a “root” of all “kinds of evil” (marg., “evils”, KJV, “evil”); bitterness, Heb. 12:15; (2) of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; 22:16. Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 539). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.​

4491 ῥίζα [rhiza /hrid·zah/] n f. Apparently a primary word; TDNT 6:985; TDNTA 985; GK 4844; 17 occurrences; AV translates as “root” 17 times. 1 a root. 2 that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot. 3 metaph. offspring, progeny. Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

noun
1.
a part of the body of a plant that develops, typically, from the radicleand grows downward into the soil, anchoring the plant and absorbingnutriment and moisture.
2.
a similar organ developed from some other part of a plant, as one ofthose by which ivy clings to its support.
3.
any underground part of a plant, as a rhizome.
4.
something resembling or suggesting the root of a plant in position orfunction:
roots of wires and cables.
5.
the embedded or basal portion of a hair, tooth, nail, nerve, etc.
6.
the fundamental or essential part:
the root of a matter.
Synonyms: base, foundation, basic part, basic element.
7.
the source or origin of a thing:
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Synonyms: beginning, rise, fount, fountainhead, spring, wellspring;derivation, originator. Webster's Dictionary​

I'll be back with more later.

--David

Great information. Thanks Worm.

 

[anonymouswho]

I don't have time to join in right now, but quickly, from Matthew 1 to Hebrews 11, Ἰακώβ [Iakob] is translated "Jacob".

And from Matthew 4 to Jude 1, Ἰάκωβος [Iakobos] is always translated "James". (as in the brother of Jesus, who I believe was the one speaking in Acts 15:13).

I see what you are saying, but if what you say is true, and James' true name is "Jacob", why not use Ἰακώβ instead

I agree. They are not the same word, I see that.

https://billmounce.com/blog/why-ἰάκωβος-james-and-not-jacob

I think this answers the question about as good as anyone else could. I really don't know why it's translated as James, but I do know that Ἰάκωβος means Jacob, so I call him Jacob. Besides the fact that every English bible translates certain words based on tradition rather than actual truth, this particular word doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

If you are interested in speaking in Interlinear Greek, I'll pass. I think you can speak in English. I think enough at work, I don't need to hold a Bible Study to interpret what your saying.

Kapish?

Yes, I can speak English. Unfortunately, the writers and speakers of the books we read could not speak English, so I think it unwise to trust a bunch of men with their own theological presuppositions. I used to only use the KJV, and it's still the only version I ever read or quote.

Can you please address both lineages, not just Luke. I was clear in my thoughts, but I do not see you addressing both. I don't see what half of this post is about in reply to my post.

Yes, I will address both lineages. Luke gives the real lineage of Joseph in the third chapter (which is actually the first), and Matthew's genealogy is in the first chapter, which was not in the original gospel that Matthew wrote.

The original gospel of Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Here's a link to a Catholic site that explains this...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

The Ebionites had a copy of it, and they used only Matthew and the Hebrew Scriptures. Their copy of Matthew did not have the first two chapters...

"Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.”

"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)

I believe I did address your issues. You said that Joseph was the father of Jesus "so it was thought". That's not what any manuscript says. It says, like the KJV, "as was supposed". There is a big difference.

If I said "the ball was round, so it was thought", this would mean that we don't really know, but most people thought the ball was round.

If I say "the ball was round, as was supposed", this would mean the ball really was round, just as we thought it was all along. The Greek and the English KJV both say "as was supposed".

I assume you believe there must be a virgin birth, otherwise Yeshua would be born with something called a "sin nature". I addressed this earlier but I'll repeat it...

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5

If this verse proves some sort of "sin nature", then it is apparently passed on from the mother. Besides the fact that this is poetry, there are several interpretations we could gather. David was conceived into a sinful world, David mother conceived him from a sinful relationship, ect.

Also, Yeshua calls YHVH, the only true God, his Father. According to the trinitarian doctrine, "God the Father" is a separate "person" than "God the Holy Spirit". So why does "God the Son" call "God the Father" his father, when both Matthew and Luke say...

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35

Which "person" is Jesus' father?

Thank you.

 

[nothead]

https://billmounce.com/blog/why-ἰάκωβος-james-and-not-jacob

I think this answers the question about as good as anyone else could. I really don't know why it's translated as James, but I do know that Ἰάκωβος means Jacob, so I call him Jacob. Besides the fact that every English bible translates certain words based on tradition rather than actual truth, this particular word doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.



Yes, I can speak English. Unfortunately, the writers and speakers of the books we read could not speak English, so I think it unwise to trust a bunch of men with their own theological presuppositions. I used to only use the KJV, and it's still the only version I ever read or quote.



Yes, I will address both lineages. Luke gives the real lineage of Joseph in the third chapter (which is actually the first), and Matthew's genealogy is in the first chapter, which was not in the original gospel that Matthew wrote.

The original gospel of Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Here's a link to a Catholic site that explains this...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

The Ebionites had a copy of it, and they used only Matthew and the Hebrew Scriptures. Their copy of Matthew did not have the first two chapters...

"Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.”

"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)

I believe I did address your issues. You said that Joseph was the father of Jesus "so it was thought". That's not what any manuscript says. It says, like the KJV, "as was supposed". There is a big difference.

If I said "the ball was round, so it was thought", this would mean that we don't really know, but most people thought the ball was round.

If I say "the ball was round, as was supposed", this would mean the ball really was round, just as we thought it was all along. The Greek and the English KJV both say "as was supposed".

I assume you believe there must be a virgin birth, otherwise Yeshua would be born with something called a "sin nature". I addressed this earlier but I'll repeat it...

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5

If this verse proves some sort of "sin nature", then it is apparently passed on from the mother. Besides the fact that this is poetry, there are several interpretations we could gather. David was conceived into a sinful world, David mother conceived him from a sinful relationship, ect.

Also, Yeshua calls YHVH, the only true God, his Father. According to the trinitarian doctrine, "God the Father" is a separate "person" than "God the Holy Spirit". So why does "God the Son" call "God the Father" his father, when both Matthew and Luke say...

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35

Which "person" is Jesus' father?

Thank you.

Holy Spirit not a person of itself. His Father created him, Jesus in the womb of Mary. That's what I think. The Father used His Power, the Holy Spirit to do this. Just like the Power of Spirit first hovering helped create our cosmos.

 

[ToBeLoved]

https://billmounce.com/blog/why-ἰάκωβος-james-and-not-jacob

I think this answers the question about as good as anyone else could. I really don't know why it's translated as James, but I do know that Ἰάκωβος means Jacob, so I call him Jacob. Besides the fact that every English bible translates certain words based on tradition rather than actual truth, this particular word doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.



Yes, I can speak English. Unfortunately, the writers and speakers of the books we read could not speak English, so I think it unwise to trust a bunch of men with their own theological presuppositions. I used to only use the KJV, and it's still the only version I ever read or quote.



Yes, I will address both lineages. Luke gives the real lineage of Joseph in the third chapter (which is actually the first), and Matthew's genealogy is in the first chapter, which was not in the original gospel that Matthew wrote.

The original gospel of Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Here's a link to a Catholic site that explains this...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

The Ebionites had a copy of it, and they used only Matthew and the Hebrew Scriptures. Their copy of Matthew did not have the first two chapters...

"Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.”

"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)

I believe I did address your issues. You said that Joseph was the father of Jesus "so it was thought". That's not what any manuscript says. It says, like the KJV, "as was supposed". There is a big difference.

If I said "the ball was round, so it was thought", this would mean that we don't really know, but most people thought the ball was round.

If I say "the ball was round, as was supposed", this would mean the ball really was round, just as we thought it was all along. The Greek and the English KJV both say "as was supposed".

I assume you believe there must be a virgin birth, otherwise Yeshua would be born with something called a "sin nature". I addressed this earlier but I'll repeat it...

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5

If this verse proves some sort of "sin nature", then it is apparently passed on from the mother. Besides the fact that this is poetry, there are several interpretations we could gather. David was conceived into a sinful world, David mother conceived him from a sinful relationship, ect.

Also, Yeshua calls YHVH, the only true God, his Father. According to the trinitarian doctrine, "God the Father" is a separate "person" than "God the Holy Spirit". So why does "God the Son" call "God the Father" his father, when both Matthew and Luke say...

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35

Which "person" is Jesus' father?

Thank you.

Why wouldn't you just translate right from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek?

God is Jesus Father. What "person" answer you are looking for I don't think matters.

 

[nothead]

Why wouldn't you just translate right from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek?

God is Jesus Father. What "person" answer you are looking for I don't think matters.

If you trinitarian it certainly DOES matter.

Trouble you have is Jesus has two daddies.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yes, I will address both lineages. Luke gives the real lineage of Joseph in the third chapter (which is actually the first), and Matthew's genealogy is in the first chapter, which was not in the original gospel that Matthew wrote.

The original gospel of Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Here's a link to a Catholic site that explains this...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

My understanding is that the OT is written in Hebrew and the NT in either Greek or Aramaic. So that's why I'm a little confused that you are going back to Hebrew and wondering why they are different.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If you trinitarian it certainly DOES matter.

Trouble you have is Jesus has two daddies.

Who? It is God through the Holy Spirit.

Who is the other daddy? Are you saying the Father is the other daddy?

I'm not getting your point.

 

[Righttruth]

Do you say that because he wrote a lot about love and happiness? You know...like life in the Kingdom...?

People pick and choose Paul, so it is automatic place in heaven!

 

[ToBeLoved]

People pick and choose Paul, so it is automatic place in heaven!

Now you are ranking on Jesus Christ Himself.

Not cute, wrong truth.

 

[Righttruth]

Everything Paul points to is Christ. The gospels specifically record Jesus's words, so you want every other book to say the same things? Like a record from a record player that skips? It makes no sense with four gospels that each book after should repeat the same thing, but that seems to be your issue.

No, Paul wanted monopoly among semi-literate and innocent apostles. In fact, he asks to imitate him coming in the way of focusing on Jesus, like Mary with Catholics. Peter also doesn't repeat Jesus' words, but glorifies His way.

Paul wrote the Epistles to the new churches of Rome, Galatia, Ephasus, Corinth, Phillipai, ect.

His strategy was simply to please all to garner support for his limited view on Jesus. That worked well with godless Gentiles:

1 Corinthians 10
33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

No wonder he wanted the status of apostleship very badly ignorant of the call of Jesus.

Maybe you do not realize what the Epistles are and what role Paul even had in his three missionary journey's. To me it is based on lack of knowledge and understanding, not because of knowledge. Can't you see that?

What even did Paul do in the New Testament? Do you really know?

Understanding Paul without giving importance to the context and people involved is like deducing a theory based on hearing one sided conversation of a person over a phone. He never wrote to you and me.

 

[Righttruth]

Now you are ranking on Jesus Christ Himself.

Not cute, wrong truth.

That is presupposition based on Paul.