ECT PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

[Jedidiah]

Yes, though that might be a bit of a generalized over-simplification...

...Greek is high-context, and Hebrew even more so. English is near the bottom of the historical scale of context for all languages....

To precisely translate anything into modern English, is not to replace the source logos word-for-word with English equivalents (precise and complete and thorough word-for-word equivalents largely do not exist -- each translation of Scripture is along a continuum of compromise -- with "literal" translations no less compromising than "thought-for-thought" renderings, as a rule, all other things being equal), but to express the same rhema expressed by the source text, only using today's English words and phrases. It may or may not result in a longer document.

How's that ?

(Your other thoughts are good, I'm just lasering in on this point for a bit....)

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I love it when others know the truth of God's Rhema in their heart in such a way that when it's presented their spirits bear total witness with it. This has never been previously exegeted and presented in mankind's history; though Paul, the Apostles, and their earliest disciples knew it in inherently higher-context form without all the excursus of endless tedious Greek-laden English detail (and before the purity of ontology was lost to endless methodologies during the rising Apologetics period and the ultimate Romanization of the Church).

As you can see, it reconciles literally everything, and there's much more depth and detail beyond this summary.

:cheers:

Yes. But you may be less disappointed by knowing that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit doesn't have an individuated sempiternal prosopon is because we all as Believers are the prosopon for the Holy Spirit as we're prosopically AND hypostatically in everlasting intercourse with our Bridegroom for all sempiternity (now being betrothed in all but flesh, but then clothed upon with incorruptibility of a cleansed and bodily-resurrected glorified prosopon).

One glorified flesh with our Husband; and there's some sense of perichoretic for us by the Holy Spirit joining us to the prosopon of Christ (which is co-inherent to both the Spirit and the Logos), because the Father is timeless Spirit in sempiternity and the Holy Spirit is multi-omni in that same seeming perichoretic by being co-inherent to the prosopon of the processed Logos which is the Son.

Cool.

The Holy Spirit brought this into my mind earlier today.

And wait until I correlate all this to the absolute reconciliation of Calvinism and Arminianism (including Open Theism and Process Theology), and Multi-verse Theory, etc.

Have been tryin' to put that into words for quite a spell.

Lookin' forward to yer rendition.

 

[Jedidiah]

Can you define "language" without employing recursion ?
And what I mean is, can you define language, without using language to define it ?

And if you can't -- and I don't think that it can be done -- what does that mean ? About language? in particular. Or, what does it mean about definitions ?

With our ears, we can see sound; just like our eyes can see light; and just like our noses can see aroma, scent or smell.

What is "language" ? To answer this question in the manner in which I above defined "sound/light/smell," I submit an imaginary video of myself speaking verified, genuine language. Perhaps reading the day's headlines. In post-production, I'd've added animated arrows to the screen, pointing at my head, and possibly ethereal contour lines around my mouth, to make it clear what's in view on the video. While I speak on-screen, I will have a voice-over or off-screen recording of me, saying repeatedly, "Language." I could add the written word "language" to the screen, but it's not needed to define the word.

And I think that would be a similar kind of definition for language, as my first sentence defines sound and light and scent. Language is physically anchored to the world. Language doesn't exist "floating about in outer space" somewhere, but is connected to us.

"English language." It's not a lone wolf kind of thing, it's "English language," it's not the English language, as if any language is a monolith; it's "what the English people's take is on 'language,'" and, "Language, English style." English is the way that English people "do" language.

Pointing and naming is the first thing that Adam did in the Garden. Before the serpent arrived. So, maybe Satan is the king of language, but he wasn't always its king.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One Could Say, Satan Has Been Doing That Since The Garden.

Absolutely. Relentlessly and surreptitiously.

... and thus is the loaf leavened.

Indeed.

 

[patrick jane]

Whadda he say??

It can all be understood using a more simple vocabulary. Why it isn't is Satanic given that it withholds from the simpleminded who have no means of comprehending the simple now made complicated by the intellectual seeking credibility. Prove me wrong. Knowledge does indeed "puff up" but only to propagate it's "puffiness" __ to be seen of men..

opinions. - atrol:



View attachment 19330

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You know, I tried to ignore this post but the more I thought about it the more it haunted me. There are an unfortunate number who post here whose gift for hyperbole finds them uttering things ill advised but that was beyond the pale. Equating the discomfiture you experienced in not understanding what PPS was saying to what the Nazis did to the Jews belittles what said Jews went through and I would suggest that in so doing you yourself join hands with their persecutors when making light of what they went through in such a manner.

You apparently don't believe it but I can assure you that you will account for every idle word. Beware.

You are too puffed up to understand a simple thing.

LA

 

[fzappa13]

​

Can you define "language" without employing recursion ?
And what I mean is, can you define language, without using language to define it ?

And if you can't -- and I don't think that it can be done -- what does that mean ? About language? in particular. Or, what does it mean about definitions ?

Using language to describe language might well be considered recursion except for the fact that many words in one language have no proper equivalent in another ... which would preclude recursion in that regard and that is one of several points I would like to offer.

Another point I think worth considering is that any language is not static but changes to accommodate those that use it in any given generation. Hense the Koine bears little resemblance to the Greek spoken today. English, being the mutt that it has always been, has undergone similar transformations.

There is a part of me that acknowledges and agrees with the idea that language can and should change to accommodate the needs of the user. Then there is another part of me that bridles at the notion, seeing it as something like changing the rules to poker in mid-hand. Either way, change language does and if we are to properly understand the written offerings of others it would behoove us to understand the words of those seeking to communicate with us across the ages if we do genuinely seek to hear them.

Having said that I must confess that I have and still do actively fight against the oversimplification of the English language by occasionally using words I know will force those so inclined to look them up so as to preserve their existence for a while longer.

 

[fzappa13]

You are too puffed up to understand a simple thing.

LA

That is one possibility ... I can think of one or two others. Can you?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I well know the futility of any attempts to converse with beligerant Unitarians about such things (when they have to depend upon a nominal definition of Logos for their fallacious doctrine while decrying definitions for words), and I have no time or energy to argue with those who obliviously live predominantly by double standards.

Beyond that, it never ceases to amaze me how all the narcissistic egomaniacs without an ounce of basic decency and courtesy have to demand an audience on this thread when it's clearly a low-profile 1-on-1 conversation initiated by AMR for a specific purpose.

This thread is initially about defining Greek terms in English for communication. And dialektos (language) is from dia- and lego (logos), so language study is a focus on God's Logos that is revelatory rather than scholasticism.

The solution for you is simple, even for a deluded Unitarian. Just abstain from posting here out of simple consideration and spend time on the bazillion other threads, or start a bazillion of your own.

We already know your position on most everything. Why not just desist by self control? How hard is that?

You know, I tried to ignore this post but the more I thought about it the more it haunted me. There are an unfortunate number who post here whose gift for hyperbole finds them uttering things ill advised but that was beyond the pale. Equating the discomfiture you experienced in not understanding what PPS was saying to what the Nazis did to the Jews belittles what said Jews went through and I would suggest that in so doing you yourself join hands with their persecutors when making light of what they went through in such a manner.

You apparently don't believe it but I can assure you that you will account for every idle word. Beware.

Ok so lets look at the post in detail.

I well know the futility of any attempts to converse with beligerant Unitarians about such things .

beligerant Unitarians.

I wonder how much study and intelligence went into that comment which is nothing more that the kind of thing a 10 years old would use, and it being an evil thing to say, with no Godly motive in it at all.

(when they have to depend upon a nominal definition of Logos for their fallacious doctrine while decrying definitions for words),

What is the purpose of this statement, which is only his opinion designed to put down another person.

and I have no time or energy to argue with those who obliviously live predominantly by double standards.

See how he adds this in order to call me a hypocrite.

Why would anyone trust the doctrine of such a person who breaks Gods word by making claims with no evidence.

Beyond that, it never ceases to amaze me how all the narcissistic egomaniacs without an ounce of basic decency and courtesy have to demand an audience on this thread when it's clearly a low-profile 1-on-1 conversation initiated by AMR for a specific purpose.

narcissistic egomaniacs--without an ounce of decency.

How dwells the love of God in him?

This thread is initially about defining Greek terms in English for communication. And dialektos (language) is from dia- and lego (logos), so language study is a focus on God's Logos that is revelatory rather than scholasticism.

Wow, revelatory now!

The solution for you is simple, even for a deluded Unitarian. Just abstain from posting here out of simple consideration and spend time on the bazillion other threads, or start a bazillion of your own.

deluded Unitarian.

He had plenty of opportunity in the past to correct Unitarianism or whatever, but he reveals his disdain for Unitarians instead of giving scriptural proof for his beliefs and shrouds his beliefs in words people do not understand

We already know your position on most everything. Why not just desist by self control? How hard is that?

You will not tolerate the opinions of others, and you use big words to say things which make you feel you have superior knowledge, but you hide your real beliefs in them to satisfy your own heart, which is why you refused to go one on one (where you would not be bothered with the opinion of anyone else), for you like to be heard more than be able to help anyone else.

LA

 

[fzappa13]

Ok so lets look at the post in detail.

LA

I was referring to your post, not his.

 

[patrick jane]

That is one possibility ... I can think of one or two others. Can you?

i can. and it boggles the mind, why anyone would keep tuning in to such 'puffed up' discussions, even though this thread can be helpful and useful in understanding scripture better than we think we already do. or maybe some find out they knew all along. besides other folks benefiting, there is no reason for this, if LA disagrees - atrol:


View attachment 19333

 

[fzappa13]

Whew!

Only one way I know of a man can say that with certainty.

Still makes me tremble, brother.:jawdrop:

Epignosis..... experiential knowledge

Uh, yes. Epignosis for sure. :chuckle:

 

[fzappa13]

i can. and it boggles the mind, why anyone would keep tuning in to such 'puffed up' discussions, even though this thread can be helpful and useful in understanding scripture better than we think we already do. or maybe some find out they knew all along. besides other folks benefiting, there is no reason for this, if LA disagrees - atrol:


View attachment 19333

I think some folks just really like the sound of their own voice.

 

[Cross Reference]

If the message of the gospel changes using the languages either Greek, Hebrew, or English, I would strongly suspect the translator.

 

[fzappa13]

If the message of the gospel changes using the languages either Greek, Hebrew, or English, I would strongly suspect the translator.

As I suggested earlier not all words have proper equivalents in other languages. That said, I would cede the point that translators are human and, as it concerns the Bible, no doubt held some belief about what it said prior to translating it that occasionally colored their efforts.

While we are on the subject ... PPS ... is there any particular reason you don't reference Kittel's work?

 

[Cross Reference]

As I suggested earlier not all words have proper equivalents in other languages. That said, I would cede the point that translators are human and, as it concerns the Bible, not doubt held some belief about what it said prior to translating it that occasionally colored their efforts.

While we are on the subject ... PPS ... is there any particular reason you don't reference Kittel's work?

I have never used any of Kittel's work when seeking understanding. That is not to say I haven't used the work of others who have relied upon Kittel for theirs. I wouldn't know unless they credited him.

While I do thank God for the record of the accounts, I believe the Bible, as we have it [not modern], is self revealing when the "Wine" is perfectly mingled. The scriptures present themselves as being fresh each and everytime when read with His insight. I hope that satisfies your question. .

 

[fzappa13]

I have never used any of Kittel's work when seeking understanding. That is not to say I haven't used the work of others who have relied upon Kittel for theirs. I wouldn't know unless they credited him.

While I do thank God for the record of the accounts, I believe the Bible, as we have it [not modern], is self revealing when the "Wine" is perfectly mingled. The scriptures present themselves as being fresh each and everytime when read with His insight. I hope that satisfies your question. .

While I am interested in your opinion and have taken note of it my question was for PPS as he has offered Spiros Zodhiates as a reference point as it concerns Koine Greek at the expense Kittel and I was curious as to the reason being that their efforts stand atop the field of those attempting to preserve and understand the Koine.

 

[Cross Reference]

While I am interested in your opinion and have taken note of it my question was for PPS as he has offered Spiros Zodhiates as a reference point as it concerns Koine Greek at the expense Kittel and I was curious as to the reason being that their efforts stand atop the field of those attempting to preserve and understand the Koine.

I'm sorry. I didn't understand your use of "PPS". Your quote seemed to reference mine that I took it to be mine. My bad.

 

[fzappa13]

I'm sorry. I didn't understand your use of "PPS". Your quote seemed to reference mine that I took it to be mine. My bad.

No problem, the fault for the confusion was likely mine.

 

[Arsenios]

While I am interested in your opinion and have taken note of it my question was for PPS as he has offered Spiros Zodhiates as a reference point as it concerns Koine Greek at the expense Kittel and I was curious as to the reason being that their efforts stand atop the field of those attempting to preserve and understand the Koine.

I remember my approach to the Greek text closely paralleled that of PPS... I used Zodhiates, because in one largish book you get all you need to do a fair exegesis of the Greek text... And what I REALLY LIKED about it was its breakdown of Greek words into their component root meanings, and the insights that such a breakdown affords... It was positively intoxicating, and very fertile ground for innovative interpretation of the text so understood...

And the truth is that there are a lot of places in the text where I think Greek words were used or coined that can ONLY be understood in terms of their root meanings... But this was in my pre-Christian reading, and it was in the Book of John, which carries the double whammy of being the easiest to translate and the hardest to understand of all the books of the Bible, except Revelation...

And the long and the short of it was that I got a great distance into the text in that manner, and finally realized that there was just no way that I could undeerstand the text without having SOME larger frame of reference... Spiritually discerned root-meaning reads of the text were ending up in contradictions or endless guessing... And I could, I suppose, have devised SOME accounting through those guesses, but when it came to that, I stopped, and backed out, and waited for the better approach...

Such is the allure of Zhodiates...

The other approaches are scholastic, and form great cataloguing enterprises, where all data is entered and assigned place and meaning, and the guy with the greatest catalog skills [the best memory] is the guy in charge of the meaning of Scripture...

So I walked away from that as well - My memory is not so good...

So there you have my take on PPS's why, and I know he will read this, and I am looking forward to his answer to you...

Arsenios