"Trinity"

[Der Alte]

Which was originally a German publication in the 1970s when Jeremias' (a German scholar) theory was most popular. It was everywhere.

It has since been refuted and retracted. A lot happens in almost 50 years.

Can you substantiate this with any credible evidence?

 

[SteveCaruso]

Can you substantiate this with any credible evidence?

I cited James Barr's article in reply #65 in this thread which dealt with this claim explicitly, and was the cornerstone refutation that led to Jeremias' followers to retract the position altogether. (Barr, J. "Abba isn't Daddy," Journal of Theological Studies 39, no. 1 [1988]: 28-47).

However, Barr was not the first one. Georg Schelbert published an essay in 1981 which he reprised in his book "Abba, Vater" ("Abba, Father"; 2011) that deconstructs the idea that "abba" means "daddy" by citing copious examples of the word's use in formal capacities. Also, the late and great Geza Vermes dedicated a number of pages to it in his book "Jesus and the World of Judaism" (published in 1983).

Jeremias' claim was poor conjecture.

 

[Wgw]

By the way chaps, @SteveCaruso is a rather good Aramaic scholar; I knew of him before I met him on cf.com; what is more, he was involved in one Aramaic project I knew of, without realizing his involvement. As a member of a church which still uses Aramaic liturgically, I can say the Aramaic community is small, and the number of knowledgeable scholars vs. total yahoos, smaller, and Steve belongs to the former group.

@Der Alter by the way is a personal friend and rather a good apologist.

And we all agree on the Trinity.

My own church by the way unwittingly bought into the error regarding "gamel," if I recall, my bishop once wrote a piece along these lines (that it meant a rope). It will take a while for the scholarship to percolate straight through, and Syriac and Assyrian churchmen sometimes are so excited about their status as the standard bearers of Aramaic Christianity that they unwittingly embrace errors like Peshitta primacy.

 

[Anto9us]

Yes, thank you, Steve Caruso -- I will now cease trying to jam a rodeo rope thru a needle - and have to go back thinking the 'needle' may have been some sort of structure that a camel had to "kneel down' to get thru...

Naah - that's just more PULPit FICTION, you know, all those sermons where we had to "humble ourselves like a camel kneeling down to get thru this 'structure' which was the needle in reference..."

Odds are -- its just a figure of speech for AN IMPOSSIBILITY - like the Talmud parallel about an elephant...

That Lamsa Bible made a case for rope, but in general, took very recent Aramaic/syriac and sai d 'the entire New Testament was written FIRST IN ARAMAIC" ???!!!!

What ?? Bulk of New Testament - in volume - was written by LUKE... a Greek physician; I don't think he wrote the originals of Luke/Acts in Aramaic

PESHITTA PRIMACY is more PULPit FICTION

 

[SteveCaruso]

Steve belongs to the former group.

Thanks for the endorsement.

It will take a while for the scholarship to percolate straight through

And that's the truth.

 

[Wgw]

Thanks for the endorsement.



And that's the truth.

We simply have to convince the Syriacs and Assyrians that they are sufficiently awesome as-is without needing to buy into the strange mythology surrounding Aramaic concocted by various wacky fringe psuedo-scholars.

To my knowledge, Peshitta primacy is not a problem with the Syriac Orthodox; this error exists mainly among the Assyrians, owing to Lamsa.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Could you put that in English please....

 

[Anto9us]

I will never keep all the 'national Orthodox Churches' straight, Wgw, I was reading in the Timothy Ware book about some churches being "Non_Chalcedonian"

Is this so?

 

[Wgw]

I will never keep all the 'national Orthodox Churches' straight, Wgw, I was reading in the Timothy Ware book about some churches being "Non_Chalcedonian"

Is this so?

The Oriental Orthodox churches rejected Chalcedon owing to a perceived Nestorianism in the Tome of Leo; they prefer to adhere to the precise mia physis Christological formula used by St. Cyril.

I myself do not believe there is any meaningful difference between the OO and EO positions; the EO view moved closer to the OO view after the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

The essential idea behind Chalcedon, that our Lord is fully God and fully man, without change, confusion or separation, is also embraced by the OO.

~

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Assyrians, who venerate Nestorius. Christologically however, I find them to be rather less genuinely Nestorian than most Calvinists. Their Christology in its present form was developed by the sixth cenrury bishop Mar Balai, and is not in my opinion greatly Nestorian; it is, I think, close enough to the EO and OO confessions for there to be the hope of someday, one unified Eastern communion.

 

[Der Alte]

By the way chaps, @SteveCaruso is a rather good Aramaic scholar; I knew of him before I met him on cf.com; what is more, he was involved in one Aramaic project I knew of, without realizing his involvement. As a member of a church which still uses Aramaic liturgically, I can say the Aramaic community is small, and the number of knowledgeable scholars vs. total yahoos, smaller, and Steve belongs to the former group.

@Der Alter by the way is a personal friend and rather a good apologist.

And we all agree on the Trinity.

My own church by the way unwittingly bought into the error regarding "gamel," if I recall, my bishop once wrote a piece along these lines (that it meant a rope). It will take a while for the scholarship to percolate straight through, and Syriac and Assyrian churchmen sometimes are so excited about their status as the standard bearers of Aramaic Christianity that they unwittingly embrace errors like Peshitta primacy.

Knowing that, I won't be challenging him again. Stepped in thinking he was the usual forum pseudo-scholar.

 

[Wgw]

Knowing that, I won't be challenging him again. Stepped in thinking he was the usual forum pseudo-scholar.

He's not. One of my regrets in life is that I will never know Aramaic half as well as he does. I would also regret the preponderance of nominal scholars of dubious repute on this forum; it makes it less appealing for chaps like @SteveCaruso or @Aelred of Riveaulx who have some genuinely interesting knowledge.

I would lament to note that to my knowledge, there are no learned liturgiologists on CF.com for example; I probably know more about liturgics than anyone else here, and that makes me very sad, because I'm not a scholar, I'm not a priest, or a cantor, or a choir director, but am basically the liturgiological equivalent of a stamp collector.*

*An in-joke which someone with some knowledge of Anglican liturgical history might get.

 

[Anto9us]

Of the Holy Spirit -- it is said in the Creed :

"He has spoken through the Prophets."

Do we take this to be THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ONLY ??

Couldn't The Holy Spirit have a hand in translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint?

It seems more quotes of OT in NT go the way of Septuagint than Masoretic -- in my small knowledge.

I had two years of undergraduate Greek.

One at a small Methodist University, than second year at a big Baptist university, where I was good-naturedly called a 'heathen' by the Baptists concerning infant baptism

At one point a big Baptist ringleader and a few cohorts sprinkled water on me from behind...

Greek class was more fun being the one Methodist among 60 Baptists than it was when I was

one of six Methodists that first year;

I never backed down about my 'heresy' at Baylor -- jumping up and down on NT refernces when someone "and their entire household" was saved - like Phillipian jailer, Lydia, Cornelius and 'the household of Stephanus

but it was useless to argue, and personally I had been baptized as an infant then immersed in a Baptist church at 19 upon being saved

How much I remember of Greek is dubious, but I like using an Interlinear that is New Revised Standard version-based

Languages - languages -- fascinating

one thread was going about that Hebrew was NOT the original language of Torah - good grief!

I am glad there are knowledgable "language giants" at CF

 

[civilwarbuff]

Knowing that, I won't be challenging him again. Stepped in thinking he was the usual forum pseudo-scholar.

I hope he hangs around....we need someone with his talent here...

 

[Anto9us]

so what say ye?

Is the Holy Spirit involved in any way with TRANSLATIONS?

Or has He just 'spoken once' and all subsequent translations are MERELY HUMAN?

 

[7xlightray]

Have you ever done a study on the furniture of the Tabernacle? Such as on gold? Gold symbolizes deity. And in 1Cor 3:12-13 it says if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stumble; Every mans work shall be manifest...
In other words, if you worship Jesus as God, then you will be rewarded. Silver represents redemption as precious stones represent people you win to Christ.
If it wasn't important to God that you recognize Jesus is God, then you wouldn't be rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ.
As far as the churches go, many condemn those who do not believe in the Godhead. However, salvation is a gift, and God doesn't take a gift back just because a person is without understanding on a Bible Doctrine.
But its also worthy to note that if a man does not confess Jesus Lord and believe He was raised from the dead, then he is not saved. Romans 10:9-10.
And another point I would like to make is, 1Timothy 3:16, Paul made it clear that the Godhead (Trinity) was a mystery.
Jesus made it clear, that the mysteries of the kingdom of God was given to the disciples, but to others in parables so that seeing they may not see, hearing they may not hear. Luke 8:10. And the Trinity is one of those messages of the kingdom of God, for Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom of God, Acts 20:24-25.
And another thing I will mention is God spoke about the Trinity in the Old Testament, Isaiah 48:16. Hope this helps you.
May the grace of God be with you.

Pay close attention to these verses many quote...

Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

So, we need be sure we know Who raised him from the dead.

For this is God testing us...Deuteronomy 13:1-3.

Paul says, we are to believe on, and in our heart, that God the Father raised him from the dead, for salvation. We do need to get it straight.

 

[Der Alte]

so what say ye?

Is the Holy Spirit involved in any way with TRANSLATIONS?

Or has He just 'spoken once' and all subsequent translations are MERELY HUMAN?

When Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. wrote the gospels and letters to former pagan, gentile Christians in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonika, et al. did they write in a secret Holy, spiritual language that only some chosen few could understand or did they write in the common language of the time so that simple people could readily understand what they wrote? I believe there are translations around that were not guided by the Spirit. For example a certain 19th century group holds that the truth of their writings will be manifested by a burning in their bosom presumably from the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Knowing that, I won't be challenging him again. Stepped in thinking he was the usual forum pseudo-scholar.

No hard feelings. Healthy skepticism is a good thing.

And if I do say something unsupported I'd rather be reminded to back it up than let it slide.

 

[SteveCaruso]

I hope he hangs around....we need someone with his talent here...

Aye, I'll be around. If anyone so much as mentions Aramaic on CF I usually have a look and weigh whether or not I should pop into the conversation.

But otherwise you may see me quibbling over the odd thing over in the Anglican forum from time to time.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Aye,

Reminds me of James Herriot's books.....

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, thank you, Steve Caruso -- I will now cease trying to jam a rodeo rope thru a needle - and have to go back thinking the 'needle' may have been some sort of structure that a camel had to "kneel down' to get thru...

Naah - that's just more PULPit FICTION, you know, all those sermons where we had to "humble ourselves like a camel kneeling down to get thru this 'structure' which was the needle in reference..."

Odds are -- its just a figure of speech for AN IMPOSSIBILITY - like the Talmud parallel about an elephant...

That Lamsa Bible made a case for rope, but in general, took very recent Aramaic/syriac and sai d 'the entire New Testament was written FIRST IN ARAMAIC" ???!!!!

What ?? Bulk of New Testament - in volume - was written by LUKE... a Greek physician; I don't think he wrote the originals of Luke/Acts in Aramaic

PESHITTA PRIMACY is more PULPit FICTION

Texas Rangers fan?