Timeline for answer to Regarding Isaiah 9:5(6), which text has the original rendering, LXX or MT, and why does the false rendering differ significantly from the original? by Dan Fefferman
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2024 at 19:08 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | @RaySolva The fact that you think God is like a man, requiring a woman to produce sons and daughters, demonstrates your convulted and unbiblical logic. While we can certainly learn what the spiritual father / son relationship is in part by considering the natural father / son relationship - you are way off base if you are insisting they are the same. Do you imagine the Son to be like a Greek Demi-god? And how do you imagine we are made to be sons and daughters of God? Read and understand the following passage: John 8:31-47 | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 12:11 | comment | added | RaySolva | @RyanPierceWilliams, I could accept your rhetoric trivia as the last word here, but answering in such manner without mention is - take my label - 'classic serpentide' behavior. Sorry, but I don't see anything convoluted in thought that fathers don't make sons without mothers. Nor I see "absence of evidence" in that. But you are still insisting that Jesus is "the Son of the Father without the Mother". Though now you place other words here, thanks me for the hint, I suppose? For the evidence that Lord Jesus is the Most High Almighty God you should wait till the Last Day, or pray for the truth. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 10:06 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | Jesus isn’t God Almighty - he is the Son of God. And whatever convulted logic you have going on, you need to state it. I’m not going to assume things for your benefit in the absence of evidence. Oftly convenient bowing out of the conversation as soon as you are pressed to support your position. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 9:47 | comment | added | RaySolva | @RyanPierceWilliams, of course there is no exact phrase "Son is the Father", but I thought you are capable to understand why that is so, -- since you seem to agree that there is no "the Mother", -- and why that does not mean that Jesus not referred as same as God the One Almighty Creator, whatever name you want to call. I think we are done here, me, at least, for sure. Aristotle's metaphysics is not what I take as the Scripture. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 9:02 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | @RaySolva Orthodoxy is a well defined, historical matter - especially with regards the Trinity. Granted you can talk about Catholicism / Western Orthodoxy vs Eastern Orthodoxy - but on this point it makes no real difference as far as I am aware. Neither refer to the Son as “Father.” Nor do the NT scriptures refer to the Son as the Father. You gave a link that doesn’t contain any counter examples to this. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 7:29 | comment | added | RaySolva | @RyanPierceWilliams, you are not stating facts, you are tossing your own labels, such as 'typical' translations, 'orthodox' understanding, and 'standard' trinitarian, like they do not touch each other at all, while they are. And your statement "the Son is never referred to as the Father" disagrees with the text. See for example. Since you've said your position, your first comment have now became understandable. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 6:01 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | @OneGodOneLord I’m more or less in agreement with you; The Arians were more inline with the majority of earlier Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Christ was definitely part of creation and is not God Almighty himself. I’m partial to the early Christian + Judaic view that the soul of the Messiah was the light of creation (1st day) and the Wisdom of God (Proverbs 8). There’s some really interesting passages in the Talmud about the Messiah and this first light. It seems to me this is also a major theme in the book of John that has been overlooked in favor of the Trinity. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 5:55 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | @RaySolva I was simply stating facts in my first comment; albeit facts that your standard Trinitarian isn’t going to like since they like to try to use this passage as a proof text in favor of the Trinity. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 5:05 | comment | added | RaySolva | @RyanPierceWilliams, it didn't become clearer to me, to be honest, what you have tried to communicate in your first comment by opposing 'typical' and 'orthodox' christian translations. I don't get it. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 4:55 | comment | added | RaySolva | @OneGodOneLord, so, imagine if they translated as it is in MT, and pagans who read "Mighty God", would ask "you mean Zeus??", then read "Father of Eternity" — "you mean Kronos??", and so on. I don't pretend to be correct in placing old pagan deities' names, but you've got the idea. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 4:52 | comment | added | RaySolva | @OneGodOneLord, we don't have the original, so guessing only. I think such shift is more of a mess rather than a planned conspiracy. Just think of what -- that verse from LXX is more suitable for view 'human-Messiah' of judaic people, while MT is more suitable for christians' view 'God Jesus', but LXX is not used in judaism, and it also had not made its way into MT manuscripts during centuries. Therefore, the fact of that textual difference between MT/LXX is too inconsistent to be thought of as of a conspiracy. AND, - LXX was done for pagans! | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 4:13 | comment | added | user90486 | RyanPierceWilliams – I am a Unitarian Christian, holding to the "Arian" position of Angelic Christology which was the orthodox doctrine of the Early Church before the Council of Nicea at 325 AD. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 3:27 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | @RaySolva to be clear I’m not defending orthodoxy. I’m not a Trinitarian (anymore). | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 1:22 | comment | added | user90486 | RaySolva – why do you think the LXX veered so far off from the original Hebrew rendering? Is there some sort of intentional conspiracy or valid purpose for doing this? | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 0:44 | comment | added | RaySolva | @RyanPierceWilliams, "apple is red" - "reddy apple, I should say!". Does that mean that an apple is the whole red(ness)? "The Son is the Father" and "the Father is the Son" can't be wrong in all contexts, otherwise we at least need "the Mother", you know. Someone back in history decided that his personal context is the whole world and started typical holy war against local "heretics". And no, I'm not implying by that, that there are no actual heresies. The "a" and a "the" never was the must in every last language in history. p.s. there is also "begotten", seems like we need new decree.. | |
| Dec 17, 2024 at 0:43 | history | edited | Dan Fefferman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 16, 2024 at 21:02 | comment | added | Ryan Pierce Williams | It is also worth noting that even the typical Christian translation doesn't mesh with an orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity, for the Son is never referred to as the Father. To the contrary, whilst in orthodoxy the Son and the Father are the same God - to say that the Son is the Father is considered to be a heresy that was rejected by the early church (Modalism). | |
| Dec 16, 2024 at 19:46 | history | edited | Dan Fefferman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 16, 2024 at 19:40 | history | edited | Dan Fefferman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 16, 2024 at 19:33 | history | answered | Dan Fefferman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |