00:00
I also came to it with myths I’d picked up from well-meaning but linguistically I’ll-informed pastors and teachers. For example I though agape meant a holy pure love, God’s love but actual use of the word contradicts that.
Or that Greek is more precise than English. The truth is that both languages have their ambiguities. And in many cases they overlap. But sometimes something that would be clear in English is ambiguous in Greek and vice versa.
My advice if you’re up for some unsolicited advice from a stranger on the Internet is if you want to continue to use the Greek (not a bad thing), take some time studying the language. I’m a fan of natural language methods, so I’d recommend the Biblical Language Center’s online course. Not free but reasonable and great.
00:20
@bob I've never seen or heard agape defined that way. I've always understood it (because of good Greek/English lexicons) as an act of the will that doesn't require reciprocity. As in, "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" is the demonstration of God's agape for us. Or John 21:15-17. There's plenty there just in English but more underneath.
@bob Peter wasn't grieved just because Jesus asked him the third time but also because the third time Jesus used phileo instead of agape. Also, the Lord's loving condescension in meeting Peter at phileo where Peter was unable or unwilling to use agape. I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more nuance if I knew Greek better.
@bob The theological war against the continued use of 'only-begotten' and the strong push to substitute 'one and only' or 'one of a kind' or 'unique' (as per BDAG) is a good example of what happens when the Greek is over emphasized or mishandled but it's also an example of the danger of merely trusting the scholars. Most of the Church Fathers were certainly far more intimate with Koine Greek than any modern day scholar and where they perceive only-begotten should be given adequate weight.
12 hours later…
6 hours later…
18:15
@Lesley My response to your comment was deleted, so I'm responding here. I have updated the question removing the offending phrase, provided alternate exegesis, and clarified that the evangelical doctrines of scripture are not at issue here, but the misuse of Heb 4:12 that I think have led to several problems (I provided two).
The main issue is switching the focus from the Living God to the words of the text, and THEN ignoring how those words are picked up by the reader injudiciously because evangelicals who are taught that interpretation (i.e. "word of God" refers to "text of Scripture") then ignore 1) other realms where God speaks (nature, God as a dyadic Being who knows and loves you); 2) contribution of scholarship to make the text of Scripture more meaningful.
Ignoring those two in practice (as I observe) often means elevating their pastor's interpretation AS the only Truth (I have encountered a believer who balks at even the mention "interpret") which then leads to NOT wanting to be open to correction when another interpretation is better ESPECIALLY when their own pastor's interpretation is heretical, as often happens in charismatic circles.
They are so brainwashed by a particular interpretation that they would vehemently quote a verse to me saying how can I ignore a "word of God" with so plain a meaning (such as asking for something in faith within prosperity gospel context), or about how ALL believers should cast out demons and speak in tongues quoting Mark 16:17.
18:41
@Lesley This mindset generated by the equation between "word of God" and "text of Scripture" then leads into an arena where disagreements are fought on textual basis thus in terms of Greek analysis, word studies, "inductive Bible Study" (one passage explaining another), basically a "closed textual realm" instead of going to the HUMANS involved to provide historical and living perspective IN ADDITION to Jesus himself as God in the flesh who did many things not recorded in the Bible.
It also ignores studying church history, which is a collection of very diverse groups of people, each engaging Jesus in their own ways to be more like Him, various church and religious movements, and how they in fact provide orthodox common ground of interpretation (i.e. "catholic") which should give us a clue to reject novel interpretations like Word of Faith, LDS, etc.
19:32
@Lesley In the evangelization context, many Evangelicals neglect how it's a lot more important to witness through BEING Jesus to non-Christians rather than citing Bible verses or offering tractates. That's why I see my 2nd illustration is truly pernicious and counter productive. There IS a place to cite those verses, but the one doing evangelization has to prepare the ground by KNOWING and LOVING the non-Christian FIRST until the other feels KNOWN and LOVED.
I blame this on the conflation too, because when they see US imitating Jesus befriending the sinners, our words will be more effective as coming from Jesus (a living being), not from the text (not living). Remember, Jesus wrote down no words; everything is precipitated through his action with his words as adjuncts to his action. Even though he also preaches, the core salvific work is ACTION: dying for us, reaching out to the lost, forgiving enemies, etc.
@GratefulDisciple The problem we have is your "focusing on Jesus rather than the text" of scripture. How would anyone know? Thus, many have other books, other prophets, other Tradition. This is simply the same problem of interpretation. Who knows what is right if we don't have the written word? And again, many will provide additional sources to let you know, they think they know as you note. "Word of God" is the written word of OT prophets and NT apostles. I provided three quotes from Christians a mere 100 years from Christ, the first generation who understood to what Heb 4:12 referred. — SLM 1 min ago
@SLM On first reading those 3 quotes don't invalidate my concern nor give support to evangelicals conflating "word of God" in Heb 4:12 to Scripture text, but I'll provide better response for each here.
@SLM "How would anyone know?" We know it from Scripture, of course. But conceptual understanding of Jesus (from Scripture) is NOT the same as Jesus Himself. We are invited to KNOW Jesus being to being, informed partly by Scripture but also from our own experiences with Jesus and through the experiences of others with Jesus. My key concern (as I related to Lesley above) is that this equation in fact REDUCES Jesus to the words of the Bible text.
20:28
@SLM Have you had the opportunity of a Godly Christian friend who loves Jesus (maybe your spouse) helps you "judge the thoughts and intentions" of your heart? If the feedback is consistent with how Jesus would have given you feedback (i.e. consistent with the portrayal of Jesus in Scripture), why wouldn't it be Jesus Himself working through your spouse? In other words, your spouse's feedback is a personalized Jesus in space and time tailored to you.
1 hour later…
21:52
@GratefulDisciple your argument continues to move from the bible (word of God that was shown as such by how early believers understood it) to Jesus with the assumption that your personal experience is somehow on par with the bible. Again that has led to Tradition, other books, other prophets, other religions all of which claim to be true. But no one of them can of course prove it. 2 Peter 2:1 in fact warns against what you're proposing. False teachers as there were false prophets all claiming to have heard something from or been picked by Jesus.
« first day next day → last day (63 days later) »
Transcript for
Oct13
Oct14
Oct15
Discussion between bob and Mike Borden
Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
