| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 183 Registered: 5-2007 |
Matthew 24:36 Parallel Translations NASB: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. (NASB ©1995) In Various translations, It says that Jesus did not know the day and the hour. Does not this fact suggest that Jesus is of a separate consciousness from The Father? Otherwise , how could this statement be true? | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 561 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow. You are on a roll ... Really good questions! I will have to think about that one. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1266 Registered: 9-2006  |
This is another one of those mysteries where the son seems to be separate from the father yet one with the father, Jesus will apparently always have a body, he told Thomas to stick his hands in the nail prints and his side, he ate he drank and promised to drink of the vine new with his deciples in and I believe his church in heaven. Hey, anybody got answers I would sure like to hear them too. He also I think made the statement that a Spirit does not have hands so he will apparently always have to same form he had here on earth. Hey, good question Jim. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6523 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jim, I don't know a completely comprehensive answer to that questions, but I do see Jesus, at the time He said those words, speaking to his disciples as a man speaking to other men. I can't say for sure, but my hunch is that while here on earth, emptied of His glory, the timing of the second coming may have been veiled from Him. Perhaps as a man, He had to complete His atoning sacrifice and conquer death before He could be privy to the timing of the second coming. And perhaps for some reason we cannot understand, this is something that the Father alone "knows". I don't fully understand, Jim, but I believe that when we are finally in eternity it may make more sense to us. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1267 Registered: 9-2006 |
Interestingly many of the translations read like this. Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Your translation adds "nor the Son". Colleens point is good, but then it brings around the old problem and I think I see where your mind is going with this, but will wait on you. River | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 739 Registered: 6-2006  |
The first thing I thought of goes along with what Colleen said, that Jesus was speaking in that time as a man. I've often wondered about how he could be tempted, or the fact that he experienced pain and sadness. I thought, well, since he's God, how could anything bother him? However, I trust him when he claimed that he is the great "I AM". He said he was God. Not one of the "godhead" (how I hate that word) or one of three gods. He said he was God. Mysterious!  Leigh Anne | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1268 Registered: 9-2006 |
He was god and man at the same time so he was subject like as we are. The devil tempted him in the wilderness, he wept, (shortest verse in the Bible) he was moved to anger by the money changers and he endured the physical pain of the cross, he had all the gamut of emotions the same as we. 100% God 100% man, God in any of the three persons knows pain, anger, contempt,and joy,(Pain can be induced into our own spirit that is greater than physical pain), same with God in all three persons, we can grieve the Holy Spirit, two people lied to him and payed with their lives, we can cause him offense. Again, IMHO. River | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4135 Registered: 3-2004  |
Some of the most intense pain is psychological pain. It can be more painful than physical pain. I am sure Jesus hurt just seeing what was going on around him when the Jews rejected him, when Peter denied him 3 times. I cannot imagine the pain He suffered. But He did it for me and you. I am so thankful. He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2020 Registered: 10-2004  |
First of all, since Jesus is God, and God can never "relinquish" His attributes, He did indeed know all things (omniscience), "even" while on earth. And the Bible makes this fact clear:
Also, the Bible is clear throughout that there is only one God and Jesus makes it very clear that He and the Father "are one" (John 10:30)--we can't separate Jesus from the Father. As for Mark 13:32 (since there is a manuscript difference for Matthew 24:36), here are a few quotations with some explanations proposed. The first quote is from Robert Bowman's study "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity":
The next quote is from the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary:
The following quote is from The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible:
Another explantion that I've heard is the Jewish wedding parallel. Here are a few examples of that explanation:
Leigh Anne, I'm with you--I have an aversion to the word "Godhead." The words translated in the King James Version as "Godhead" simply mean Deity (you will not find the word "Godhead" in the modern translations). The Mormons and SDAs, though, have taken the word "Godhead" and turned it into the title of a "god group." Jeremy | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4136 Registered: 3-2004 |
Something like "God's Heads" ) Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6528 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ha! That's good, Diana! I agree, Jeremy and Leigh Anne—I've also come to deeply dislike the term "Godhead". Now that I realize I was originally taught to use that term instead of "Trinity"—and now that I understand why—that term is distasteful to me. Wow—I can now appreciate the symbol of the cross, worship the Trinity, embrace a totally sovereign God, and know I am saved! Wow! Colleen PS—thanks for the quotes above, Jeremy. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 962 Registered: 10-2002  |
There are many statements in the book of John where Jesus talks about the Father giving Him all things, about being one with the Father, and about them sharing everything. Additionally, the statements made by Jesus and by God the Father in the book of Revelation are oftentimes nearly identical so that it is difficult to tell exactly who is talking. In other words, we're looking at a mystery here. And the only explanation for it is to weigh all verses on the subject. The best explanations seems to be the one Jeremy quoted. The Jewish wedding example is particularly poignant to me also because I've heard that Jesus' language at the opening of John 14 ("I go there to prepare a place for you") is also language of a Jewish bridegroom's promise to his bride. Deep in this mystery of the Trinity is that while three yet one, they love one another (see John 15-17) and share things with one another and bring glory to one another. Philippians 3 says that Jesus did not consider equality with Father something "to be grasped" --even though He was God (according to that same passage)! But from here we see the nature of their loving relationship and their equality. It is not "taken", it is not "grasped", but it is freely and lovingly given. Perhaps the best parallel is the loving submission of a wife to her husband, or the husband lovingly sharing all with his wife. This mystery of loving sharing resurfaces in the opening paragraphs of Revelation which say that the book of prophecy was given by the Father to the Son, and then from the Son to His servants (to us, that is, through the revelation of the Holy Spirit). We see here that though the Father and Son are One and share all things, the Son does not "take", "grasp" or "demand" from the Father, but rather the Son submits to Father (and loves Him and glorifies Him), and the Father lovingly shares all things with the Son (and the Father loves the Son and glorifies Him). Why? I don't know, but I'm in awe of the sheer love that has existed from eternity past between the Father and the Son, and I believe it is this love that God wants us to stare into, deeply! Jesus prayed that we would know this glory, this love, that He had with Father in His presence before the world began (John 17). | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2023 Registered: 10-2004 |
Yes, a lot of the events seem to line up with Jewish wedding procedure. Such as the best man (archangel) heralding the coming of the Bridegroom (Jesus). (See 1 Thessalonians 4). Which means the archangel cannot be Jesus. Jeremy | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 968 Registered: 10-2002 |
Interestingly, on the loving submission/giving note, it can also be noted that the Father did not "take" the life of His Son, but that the Son gave and offered Himself up to the Father. This is love! | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 185 Registered: 5-2007 |
The explainations are plausible. However, like many other areas in scripture. We are not able to ask questions from a static record. We can only extrapolate and compare. While I can have confidence in the scriptures as a whole. I have my doubts about it verbatum. Mostly due to the limitations of speech, thought and translations. Rather, I am learning and trending towards trying to take in the whole as a perspective rather than getting locked in on a single detail. Nonetheless, this type of variance is what causes a lot of the confusion and inability to form settled doctrine. I suspect confusion is intentional for some reason. At least in this age of humanity. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 750 Registered: 6-2006 |
Jim, I really appreciate your posts, and how you analyze what you're learning. Your questions always make me think of things I've never thought about before. However, I have to say in reading them, you're reminding me of of Mr. Spock from Star Trek. *GRIN* Leigh Anne (Queen of the boob tube) (Message edited by grace_alone on August 14, 2007) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1214 Registered: 4-2000  |
Jim, Here is an excellent link on biblical inerrancy: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 187 Registered: 5-2007 |
Leigh Anne, When I was a child my aunt told me I think too much and over analyze. It fits my character. You guessed right. I am a SCI FI enthusiast. My favorite is Star Trek. Character Selector: A mix between Spock, Lt.Barclay and a bit of Scotty. I think it is a good thing to consider the postive possibilities of life in a reality where things work and make sense. Where nature and technology are in balance. Sci Fi is about possibilities and having the courage of our dreams. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 188 Registered: 5-2007 |
Dennis, I wish it were that I could say that I have full confidence in all Biblical scripture. It would establish a starting point. To the outside observer, establishing truths from the Bible is circular reasoning from within a closed system, and that is the problem. In it's formation the scriptures were a collection of books from many authors. The thoughts expressed were (IMO) (By the influence and revelation of The Holy Spirit)expressed in human terms through a human vessel, the "expressions" of God's will or truths, with the possible exceptions of "quoted messages" from a Prophet or Servant of God. Thus, I do not always feel it is safe to be "verbatum" but rather more wholly balanced to attempt to grasp the body of the message. Many texts are obscure because they were written to a group or person(s) in context to assumed information not provided in the letter. Some texts refer to customs that also are not clearly stated or defined. Some are "opinions". I am NOT suggesting the Bible is unreliable. I am saying it is a compliation of letters and books and not always conclusive, complete or exhaustive in the topics it speaks of. I am saying you cannot always settle a matter nor establish a complete picture from fragmented or partial data. The Bible has many "Global" messages that are (IMO-and belief) the revealed will and truths of God. , The caution I suggest is that it is not digital in nature. But anlalog if you will. You cannot always create exact science from it but must instead live from scripture as an artform so to speak. "Spiritualy". Respectfully, Jim | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 120 Registered: 4-2007 |
Hi Jim, I would really like to borrow your last two sentences. It perfectly expresses my approach to scripture. The bible is the infallible, inspired word of God, yes! Is every word inerrant, no. The problem is transmission and translations. I wanted to be a missionary translator. So I took a B.A. degree in Anthropology, with emphasis on cultural anthropology and linguistics, and 3 years plus of Koine Greek. The idea was to have the skills to learn and develop an alphabet and grammar for an unwritten language and then translate the New Testament into that langauge so its speakers could learn to read, and have the bible in their own language. (As an aside this is why, to those who know my 'former' story, I ended up at an Adventist College as a senior, as a theology major, instead of going all four years to an Adventist school. No Adventist college had the necessary credentials to meet bible society requirements for translators, yet you had to get denominational endorsement to be considered. Of course, being young and dumb it never occurred to me that Adventism would refuse to allow me to participate in an interdenominational group.) Anyway! After that disastrous semester at the Adventist college, I did return to my former university and finish my double major. How that relates to your post is this: What I noticed in really studying the mechanics of translation is that it is truly an ART, it is not a science. Understanding the original, both in grammar and its cultural context is very difficult, then putting that understanding into modern language so that the majority of people reading it will get some sense of the original. That is why there is no one translation of the bible that fully satisfies me, personally. There are further problems. Most students of biblical greek take a year or two and do not go that far into the research that created their grammars, lexicons, and reference materials. There is definitely denominational bias in those materials. Often unintended, but it is there. I had one Greek professor, himself a member of the Church of Christ, refer derisively to "Baptist Greek" in response to another students disagreement over a translation exercise. That was the first time I had thought to question the idea that grammar books and dictionaries might not be unbiased in their presentation of greek. I'm not saying there is intentional deception. Its just that it is not an exact science and bias is bound to be present. Sometimes it does affect translation. I see a lot in forum discussions, especially elsewhere were debate is allowed, of assertions like "in the original there are no commas, so that one is in the wrong place...." Yea, but, greek doesn't NEED commas, as a highly inflected language, they are built in. Or this one, "it doesn't say "BY" blah blah.. its says "ON" blah blah..." yea, but again, the dative case that allows for translating "by" also allows for translating "on". Unless there are other words that emphasize one meaning or another, you have to depend on your translator's sense of the context. Its not enough to make a major doctrinal distinction over with any reliability, imho. That is why inerrancy does not make sense to me. That the Bible is the inspired word of God, yes. Infallible in totality, yes. That is also why I am deeply suspicious of novelty in interpreting scripture. I love to study the bible. But on doctrinal matters, I do defer to the authority of the Church for the final say on the interpretation and application of scripture in my spiritual life. (donning full body armor here *grin* ) That doesn't mean I can't study for myself. It just means the bible is not self interpreting. I do not discount the role of the Holy Spirit, but I do not find any consistency amoung the widely different views of those embracing "bible alone" to get a sense that the bible alone is sufficient to settle all doctrinal questions. God bless, MarysRoses |
