Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani

[quote]kamui wrote:
An open question to all christians here :

How do you interpret this line ?
Just a reference to psalms 22 ? or something else ?[/quote]

Scott Hahn in his glass of Matthew 27:46 said, "In context, Ps 22 depicts the plight of a righteous sufferer. Although innocent, he is mocked and abused by the ungodly. He thus turns to God in his distress and petitions God for deliverance. By citing the psalm’s opening line, Jesus expresses his agony as he experiences the full brunt of rejection.

This evokes the entire plot of Ps 22, where the sufferer’s humiliation gives way to his vindication. Thus Jesus does not consider his Passion meaningless or a mark of failure; still less does he succumb to a sin of despair. Rather, he “trusts in God” (27:43) and surrenders his spirit to the Father (Lk 23:46). Like the innocent sufferer of Ps 22, he is confident that God will turn his misery into victory (cf. Lk 23:43)."

Back to the books.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing[/quote]

Utterly unpractical.

CHRISTOPHER’S BACK!!!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
An open question to all christians here :

How do you interpret this line ?
Just a reference to psalms 22 ? or something else ?[/quote]

Scott Hahn in his glass of Matthew 27:46 said, "In context, Ps 22 depicts the plight of a righteous sufferer. Although innocent, he is mocked and abused by the ungodly. He thus turns to God in his distress and petitions God for deliverance. By citing the psalm’s opening line, Jesus expresses his agony as he experiences the full brunt of rejection.

This evokes the entire plot of Ps 22, where the sufferer’s humiliation gives way to his vindication. Thus Jesus does not consider his Passion meaningless or a mark of failure; still less does he succumb to a sin of despair. Rather, he “trusts in God” (27:43) and surrenders his spirit to the Father (Lk 23:46). Like the innocent sufferer of Ps 22, he is confident that God will turn his misery into victory (cf. Lk 23:43)."

Back to the books.[/quote]

And my hat is off to Dr. Hahn for that analysis.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Each time i try to understand the early christologic debates, i get the feeling that these men (the first christians) faced a theologic mystery, and used greek philosophic concepts to solve it. As if phusis and ousia were required to understand it.
[/quote]

Paul said exactly this:

1Ti 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…

I would submit that trying to use philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing in trying to come to a better understanding.[/quote]

And why not?
[/quote]

1Co_1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co_1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing[/quote]

Utterly unpractical. [/quote]

Yes, understanding God, who is a spirit, by using logic is certainly not practicable. At best, our philosophic musings will bring us to knowledge of His existence, and His interest in creation, not much more. But “The just shall live by faith”.

Faith requires humility. Most often, a philosopher becomes enamored with the power of the mental processes and becomes “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” (Col 2:18). But, “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Psa 34:18)

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing[/quote]

Utterly unpractical. [/quote]

Yes, understanding God, who is a spirit, by using logic is certainly not practicable. At best, our philosophic musings will bring us to knowledge of His existence, and His interest in creation, not much more. But “The just shall live by faith”.

Faith requires humility. Most often, a philosopher becomes enamored with the power of the mental processes and becomes “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” (Col 2:18). But, “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Psa 34:18)

[/quote]

Are you saying that you are practical…because you are not logical?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Are you saying that you are practical…because you are not logical?[/quote]

EDITED:
No, I am saying logic has it’s limits. Do you not believe this?

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Are you saying that you are practical…because you are not logical?[/quote]

EDITED:
No, I am saying logic has it’s limits. Do you not believe this?
[/quote]

I could be wrong, but no I don’t believe this. Let’s look at some of the facts.

Well, first I want to make a distinction between limits and rules or characteristics. A limit is something that stops something from becoming greater or lesser. A rule or characteristic is something that allows for something to become its lesser or greater in its very being. Example, God is good. God is so good that he is infinitely perfect in obedience to his own Divine Law. He can absolutely not do evil, not because he is not capable of doing it (in he doesn’t have the faculties), but he is unable to do it because of his characteristic or virtue of being Good. To explain the example before, it is difference between a Marine being capable of murdering someone and being unable to murder someone because they are virtuous.

An example of being limited, is most obvious. When you drive, you may have a governor on your car that limits you to only going 95 and not 96 mph. Weird example, but that is all I can think of.

So, further…if something is infinite, it cannot, by definition, be limited. Jesus being logic or reason itself (Tirib’s words) and being said so in the most Holy Bible in John 1, Jesus is Logos or translated as Word, logic, or reason. Logic being the science and art which directs the act of the reason, by which a man in the exercise of his reason is enabled to proceed without error, confusion, or unnecessary difficulty into truth. Jesus also being truth, this makes perfect sense.

And, to my point. Jesus is infinite. That means if he is logic, logic is infinite, reason is infinite. But, why would logic need to be infinite?

Well, because Jesus is something with reason and logic, he is truth. Infinite truth.

So, no.

I believe that mysteries are beyond logic in the degree that the human mind is not powerful (such as the angel’s minds are so powerful that they understand these truths not by syllogism but by intuition instead of inference) enough to understand the mystery. However, just because man’s mind is so weak that he is not able to reason such mysteries, does not mean the mystery is outside of logic. Or, in case of others the mystery never happened.

It is as Tirib says, just because we’re five years old and we can’t reach the cereal box on top of the fridge, doesn’t mean it is outside the possibility of reaching the cereal box because our father can and does reach it every morning. And, that doesn’t mean that we don’t stop trying to reach the box, either. With faith we can move mountains after all. Understanding our Father more deeply has never been a sin.

Anyway, regards.

BC

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Each time i try to understand the early christologic debates, i get the feeling that these men (the first christians) faced a theologic mystery, and used greek philosophic concepts to solve it. As if phusis and ousia were required to understand it.
[/quote]

Paul said exactly this:

1Ti 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…

I would submit that trying to use philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing in trying to come to a better understanding.[/quote]

And why not?
[/quote]

1Co_1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co_1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[/quote]

Oh yeah! Well:
The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom,
and his tongue speaks justice.
(Psalm 37:30 ESV)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
	fools despise wisdom and instruction.

(Proverbs 1:7 ESV)

Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
	and the one who gets understanding,

(Proverbs 3:13 ESV)

for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.

(Luke 21:15 ESV)

Comon, Let’s not get into a bible quotin’ contest…

It is perfectly ok to look at things in a logical manner. Of course, it has limits, but asking questions, drawing conclusions and making correlations is perfectly fine. If you don’t ever question, you stay ignorant…The bible says so :slight_smile:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Are you saying that you are practical…because you are not logical?[/quote]

EDITED:
No, I am saying logic has it’s limits. Do you not believe this?
[/quote]

I could be wrong, but no I don’t believe this. Let’s look at some of the facts.

Well, first I want to make a distinction between limits and rules or characteristics. A limit is something that stops something from becoming greater or lesser. A rule or characteristic is something that allows for something to become its lesser or greater in its very being. Example, God is good. God is so good that he is infinitely perfect in obedience to his own Divine Law. He can absolutely not do evil, not because he is not capable of doing it (in he doesn’t have the faculties), but he is unable to do it because of his characteristic or virtue of being Good. To explain the example before, it is difference between a Marine being capable of murdering someone and being unable to murder someone because they are virtuous.

An example of being limited, is most obvious. When you drive, you may have a governor on your car that limits you to only going 95 and not 96 mph. Weird example, but that is all I can think of.

So, further…if something is infinite, it cannot, by definition, be limited. Jesus being logic or reason itself (Tirib’s words) and being said so in the most Holy Bible in John 1, Jesus is Logos or translated as Word, logic, or reason. Logic being the science and art which directs the act of the reason, by which a man in the exercise of his reason is enabled to proceed without error, confusion, or unnecessary difficulty into truth. Jesus also being truth, this makes perfect sense.

And, to my point. Jesus is infinite. That means if he is logic, logic is infinite, reason is infinite. But, why would logic need to be infinite?

Well, because Jesus is something with reason and logic, he is truth. Infinite truth.

So, no.

I believe that mysteries are beyond logic in the degree that the human mind is not powerful (such as the angel’s minds are so powerful that they understand these truths not by syllogism but by intuition instead of inference) enough to understand the mystery. However, just because man’s mind is so weak that he is not able to reason such mysteries, does not mean the mystery is outside of logic. Or, in case of others the mystery never happened.

It is as Tirib says, just because we’re five years old and we can’t reach the cereal box on top of the fridge, doesn’t mean it is outside the possibility of reaching the cereal box because our father can and does reach it every morning. And, that doesn’t mean that we don’t stop trying to reach the box, either. With faith we can move mountains after all. Understanding our Father more deeply has never been a sin.

Anyway, regards.

BC[/quote]

Ah, you’ve been missed…

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I believe that mysteries are beyond logic in the degree that the human mind is not powerful (such as the angel’s minds are so powerful that they understand these truths not by syllogism but by intuition instead of inference) <<<[/quote]Yep yep yep. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<<It is as Tirib says, just because we’re five years old and we can’t reach the cereal box on top of the fridge, doesn’t mean it is outside the possibility of reaching the cereal box because our father can and does reach it every morning. >>>[/quote]Ohhh my dear Christopher. This is brilliant. That is a fabulous illustration. =] =] =][quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< With faith we can <<<>>> Understand <<<>>> our Father more deeply [and that] has never been a sin. >>>[/quote]I redacted that last part. I’m going to hold you to these profundities that you have here set before us Chris because like Aquinas you will be soon be contradicting them without realizing it. God has been furthering His work in your life though. BTW, I’d be shocked if Mr. Chen disagreed with any of this. Could be wrong. I was going to move this post into the epistemology thread because it’s exactly what were talkin about there, but I doubt Kamui would mind it here. I hope he’s back soon too. I’m waitin for some more dialog with him.

[quote]pat wrote:
Comon, Let’s not get into a bible quotin’ contest…[/quote]
Since this thread was started by asking about a bible verse, quoting others I think would be okay. And I really was just referencing scripture to shed light on the question I was answering. I’m not trying to start a competition. After all, this is what scripture is for: The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. (Psa 119:130)

Yes, I agree with this entirely, I was not trying to say otherwise.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Example, God is good. God is so good that he is infinitely perfect in obedience to his own Divine Law. He can absolutely not do evil, not because he is not capable of doing it (in he doesn’t have the faculties), but he is unable to do it because of his characteristic or virtue of being Good.[/quote]
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isa 45:7)

Logic can’t explain this one. At least it is beyond the logic of your statement.

It’s very problematic to go to a Greek dictionary and swap words like this. You don’t know the origin of the vocabulary for one. And here, you completely change the meaning of the verse, in this casing allowing for exactly what I said is not true. You have also limited Christ’s character. Logic and reason are simply tools of the “fleshly mind.” John 1:1 is an all encompassing summary of who Jesus Christ is.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Logic can’t explain this one. At least it is beyond the logic of your statement.
[/quote]

I maybe wrong, but looking at a glass of Isaiah 45:7, the evils that God creates are the evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin.

God brought the flood, the plagues, &c. It’s very problematic with going to a modern dictionary to understand what an ancient hebrew means.

I hate to inform you but, I don’t use or own a Greek dictionary any more (used to when I studied under Calvinists and Lutherans). I used the writings of the early Christians. Further, I wasn’t giving an exhaustive explanation of the word Logos. Just as a baby isn’t an exhaustive definition of man, a baby is still a definition a man (at least in the medieval sense).

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I maybe wrong, but looking at a glass of Isaiah 45:7, the evils that God creates are the evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin. [/quote]
Many would understand it this way. You have added to the simple statement you made above though.

I don’t believe you follow what I’m saying, as these are 2 things almost entirely. My point was that to go back and change the English text means you are working blindly, as there are too many things you do not know. This isn’t the same at all as reading your English bible, but occasionally consulting a dictionary of the same language, if you don’t know the import of the word.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote: Further, I wasn’t giving an exhaustive explanation of the word Logos. Just as a baby isn’t an exhaustive definition of man, a baby is still a definition a man (at least in the medieval sense).
[/quote]
The translation cannot be all the words you used. It is one of them. Do you know how the writer of John intended to define Jesus? The translators have already chosen a word that expresses the meaning of the Greek text. It doesn’t also encompass “reason” or “logic”. You think it does because you read some other commentator who thinks it does. Start with the English word you have in front of you, then compare scripture with scripture (that is study other passages that shed light on “the word”) to gain an understanding of what God means. The bible will define itself for you in this way. You should not resort to the vocabulary and writings of pagan philosophers to understand what God intends His words to mean. “The words of the Lord are pure words…”

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You should not resort to the vocabulary and writings of pagan philosophers to understand what God intends His words to mean. “The words of the Lord are pure words…”[/quote]

Did you just call the Early Christians, pagan philosophers?

Anyway, if we’re talking about the word “Word of God” or just short “Word.” I do understand, though not as deeply as I’d like the meaning of the Word of God.

The greek word “Logos” comes out to be word, statement, or utterance. As far as I can see in biblical and philosophical translation. Doing a quick search of the Bible (NT at least) it looks like it is at least said 300 times. So, pretty important word based just off volume. So, how can we understand “word.” Well, from word studies it seems that John’s meaning of this concept is both biblical and philosophical:

  1. The first meaning we can see through Ancient Greek philosophers took the word and associated Word with order, design of the world, or the intelligent expression of the mind of God as he keeps it going.

  2. The second is a Biblical tradition of the phrase is it is a “powerful utterance of God” which created and brought all things at the beginning of the time. Gen 1:3, Ps 33:6, and though you don’t accept it…it is Jewish literature Wis 9:1.

  3. The third is another Biblical tradition, which links the phrase with the Wisdom of God who is depicted many ways:

  • Eternal Companion Prov 8:23 and Sir 24:9
  • Craftsman Prov 8:30 and (I know) Wisdom 7:22
  • Source of life Prov 8:35

John uses all this to say that the Word of God is not just an abstraction, or a powerful utterance, but the Divine Person God the Son (Rev 19:13).

And, of course the eternal Word went from being a mediator of creation to salvation (Jn 1:14, 3:17).

I’m not completely unfamiliar with the background of the Word of God.

Anyway, regards.

BC

Chris,

As you know, “logos” in Jn 1:1 is translated “word”. If you want to find some synonyms, that’s fine. That’s not the same as saying it also means- logic, reason, etc. As I said, if you really want to know what the bible writers mean when they write “logos” in the bible, you have hundreds of verses you can compare and study as you’ve discovered.

Why go outside the bible if you haven’t done that yet. Have you ever wondered why the translators didn’t just transliterate it, like say the word “baptism.” I think it’s pretty obvious at least one of the reasons is because “logos” is loaded with pagan philosophical connotations. They instead chose to separate their definition of the Savoir from these.

I didn’t call any certain christian a pagan philosopher. I was actually referring to the above, as you seem to be something of a philosophy student, I thought you would pick up my meaning. Although I will say I’m not that interested in any certain church “father”. I am much more interested in the Word of God itself.

Hope I’ve been clearer for you.


If I may throw a couple cents in here. Verse 18 goes a long way in enlightening us on John’s usage of the word “logos”. We’ll go with the NAB in this case to avoid any Catholic quibbling =] [quote]No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.[/quote] The pic shows the Greek text. The underlined word is the aorist, middle deponent, indicative, third person singular form of the Greek word exegeomai. Pronounced eks ay gay oh my and translated as “revealed Him”. It’s where we get our English term exegesis meaning to interpret, declare and lay open the content of the scriptures.

Jesus of Nazareth in His earthly ministry was the exegesis of God Himself. The authoritative interpretation and declaration of God. I say was, in His earthly ministry, because the aorist tense indicates a singular point of action completed in the past. His revelation of God was completed at His ascension. The middle deponent voice means that while it is middle in the Greek, that is, the subject of the action acting upon itself, it is not always possible to effectively render in English so the active is used instead.

How would you translate the middle voice here? "He of himself. declared himself? Doesn’t work well. There is a pointer to His deity here as well. Third person singular means pretty much what they do in English. In Short, Jesus as Logos means: “wanna know what God’s like? Look at Jesus”. Hebrews 1:1 tells us that while God spoke in different times and different ways in the past, He has now in these last days SPOKEN to us by His Son. Jesus IS the Word of God.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If I may throw a couple cents in here. Verse 18 goes a long way in enlightening us on John’s usage of the word “logos”. We’ll go with the NAB in this case to avoid any Catholic quibbling =] [quote]No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.[/quote] The pic shows the Greek text. The underlined word is is the aorist, middle deponent, indicative, third person singular form of the Greek word exegeomai. Pronounced eks ay gay oh my and translated as “revealed Him”. It’s where we get our English term exegesis meaning to interpret, declare and lay open the content of the scriptures.

Jesus of Nazareth in His earthly ministry was the exegesis of God Himself. The authoritative interpretation and declaration of God. I say was, in His earthly ministry, because the aorist tense indicates a singular point of action completed in the past. His revelation of God was completed at His ascension. The middle deponent voice means that while it is middle in the Greek, that is, the subject of the action acting upon itself, it is not always possible to effectively render in English so the active is used instead.

How would you translate the middle voice here? "He of himself. declared himself? Doesn’t work well. There is a pointer to His deity here as well. Third person singular means pretty much what they do in English. In Short, Jesus as Logos means: “wanna know what God’s like? Look at Jesus”. Hebrews 1:1 tells us that while God spoke in different times and different ways in the past, He has now in these last days SPOKEN to us by His Son. Jesus IS the Word of God.
[/quote]

It genuinely blows my mind that you believe that Jesus is God after quoting a scripture that plainly says Jesus is at God’s side…and that says no one has seen God.