markomalley

You ought to take a look at an Aramaic interlinear of it to see for yourself: You can find one here (for Mark 15) or here (for Matt 27) (requires Adobe Acrobat) (btw, if your browser has a problem with TinyURL's, manually copy and paste the following into your web browser's address bar (and remove the space): www.pes hitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf www.pes hitta.org/pdf/Mattich27.pdf Or you could take a look at the TWI-created Aramaic Interlinear. VPW used a translation of the Bible provided by one Mr. George Lamsa. Both the Mattew and Mark references to this say, according to the www.pes hitta.org Interlinear, My God, My God, why have you spared me? (Don't believe me, look it up for yourself) The TWI Interlinear states, My God, My God, for what purpose have you spared me? (both for Matthew and Mark) While both are significantly different than the "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" text, they are also much different than the Lamsa text that VPW advocated through PFAL. An interesting thing: This extract is Jesus' pronounciation of Psalms 22:1 (again, look it up for yourself). I don't have any references to an Aramaic Old Testament available to me, so I can't check on this...but Lamsa's rendition of Ps 22:1 says "My God, My God, why hast thou let me to live?" (The traditional English translations from Hebrew to English state, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?") The Hebrew of Ps 22:1 uses the word `azab (Strong's 05800). The typical translation of the word is "forsake", "leave"...but it is used in a couple of places as "repair". I don't pretend to be a Hebrew scholar and so can't speak to what it "should be" in Psalms 22:1. The Septuagint for Ps 22:1 uses the word egkataleipo, meaning to leave behind (Strong's 1459). I personally don't see a theological issue if the phrase "why hast thou forsaken me" or "why have you spared me" are used. I see a major theological issue if the phrase "for this I was spared" is in there. The reason why? Because the weight of all the sin in the world was on Jesus at that time. It must have been incredible. For Jesus to recall the words of Psalm 22 is completely justifiable and understandable. For him to shout out "for this I was spared" makes no sense at all. It sounds like an arrogant little boy saying "I gotcha," "I fooled you and now you lose the game Satan!" Read Psalm 22 and you'll see what I'm saying: Psa 22:1 To the choirmaster: according to The Hind of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest. Psa 22:3 Yet thou art holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. Psa 22:4 In thee our fathers trusted; they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. Psa 22:5 To thee they cried, and were saved; in thee they trusted, and were not disappointed. Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people. Psa 22:7 All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; Psa 22:8 "He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" Psa 22:9 Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother's breasts. Psa 22:10 Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God. Psa 22:11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help. Psa 22:12 Many bulls encompass me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; Psa 22:13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast; Psa 22:15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost lay me in the dust of death. Psa 22:16 Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet-- Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones-- they stare and gloat over me; Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. Psa 22:19 But thou, O LORD, be not far off! O thou my help, hasten to my aid! Psa 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! Psa 22:21 Save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen! Psa 22:22 I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee: Psa 22:23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! all you sons of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you sons of Israel! Psa 22:24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Psa 22:25 From thee comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will pay before those who fear him. Psa 22:26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live for ever!

They are ALL horrible people who should be exterminated!

I am certainly not trying to put words into anyone person's mouth in particular. I am just relating what I've observed from TWI teachings and from reading links to JAL's writings, etc. Frankly, I would think that it would be harder. Why? Because he voluntarily took on flesh. Voluntarily. With all of the thoughts, the hormones, the everything else that comes with that. Imagine having the knowledge that you aren't stuck with that, but voluntarily have to deal with it. Imagine you KNOW what is going to come. All of the pain, the agony, the suffering, the mocking, everything. You KNEW what it would be like to be dead. You KNEW how bad it would hurt being scourged. You KNEW the spurning of your own people. And you didn't HAVE to put up with it. You KNEW the feeling of being hunted from birth, that the majority of your people would reject you. That would be horrifying to me. Because for Him, to KNOW is not just to have a grasp of words on parchment, it would be a lifelike knowledge that you'd already experienced it. If you read Rev 5-9, you can see an eternal nature of this sacrifice which shows that, in the heavenly sense, it is a real NOW. (Rev 5:6 "Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain...")... To voluntarily do that, KNOWING what it is before you do so...in my mind FAR more difficult. But, like everything else on the Doctrine board, YMMV.

If you don't buy the doctrine, then why are you going in the first place?

I believe the particular version to which I was referring was Eutychianism (a part of Monophysitism). But If I'm wrong, I'll be happy for somebody to provide the name of the correct heresy. I guess that you could say Docetism. The point I was trying to drive at was that I distinctly get the impression from those who hold Arian beliefs is that it seems that they think (at least per the majority of the readings I've looked at) that Trinitarians do not acknowledge that Jesus was fully incarnate...and that means fully.

ckmckeon, Welcome to GSC. I have three verses for you to consider: 1Cr 8:1b "Knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. 1Cr 8:2 If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 1Cr 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 1Cr 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1Cr 13:3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. 1Cr 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 1Cr 13:5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 1Cr 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 1Cr 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Col 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. TWI claimed to be very good with "knowledge" -- (they weren't as good as they thought, not hardly) -- but somewhere in there they lost the most important thing. Love. Consequently, if you would like to do as the Word instructs, walk in love. FWIW

Well it might get them to google the concept! (btw, Monophysitism states that Jesus was of one substance -- spiritual -- and that His appearance on earth was not a true incarnation (becoming flesh) but was merely a phantasm)

Fides et Ratio -- there are some remarkable insights in the linked document that might provide you some beneficial information. My thought on the process is that Faith illuminates reason. It guides it and shapes it. On the other hand, superstition blinds reason. It blocks it and squashes it. Faith and reason, working together, pursue truth. Superstition, working in opposition to reason, keep us in error.

I think sometimes that Arians, like TWI and JW's, believe that Trinitarians are Monophysites. And nothing could be farther from the truth.

You haven't killed the tread at all. I just personally see things in terms of temporal parallels matching up with eternal realities. For example, one can see, after a fashion, a precursor to this illustrated in the creation account, when God formed woman out of man (cf Gen 2:21-22). The temporal passover, started when the Hebrews were in captivity in Egypt, was a first-born male lamb, not a female lamb (cf Ex 12:5). But the thing that got me the most was the analogy between a husband and wife and between Christ and His Church, shown in Eph 5 and as discussed in Rev 18, 20, 21, and 22. That analogy is simply incredible in my mind and, as described metaphorically, in such great detail in the Song of Songs. The relationship and love song that constantly goes between Christ and his Church (and I, btw, am not talking about the Latin Church or any other particular church, but the "Universal Church"), is awesome, if you look at it in that way. And I see the authentic masculinity of Jesus as being critical to that relationship. And that relationship as being critical to an genuine understanding of how God relates to His Creation. That might be somewhat controversial to some Wierwille followers...if I recall correctly, they somewhat rejected the "Bride of Christ" relationship as being not part of this "dispensation" (although I'm foggy on that and somebody can feel free to correct me). This is definitely controversial to a lot of liberal Christian groups, who consistently try to make the Bible, and God's reference to us, more 'gender neutral.' But I see it, rather than being a matter of oppresion, as some wish to make it, a matter of an intense love story. As such, I see that as being one of the core, central aspects of Christianity. But again, I'm interested in hearing alternate views on the subject.

Actually, I agreed with the statement at the time. I still agree with the statement, as it pertained to most of the churches that I was familiar with in the '60s and '70s. My experience was that there was CCD and CYO. You got catechized in CCD and if you were a jock, you could participate in CYO. That was basically it. (Yeah, some parishes had boy scout and girl scout troops, but again that was for a small segment) -- there was virtually NOTHING out there that I saw for HS kids and for college-age kids/young adults. At least, in my experience. That has changed a lot. It is the norm to have kids, all through their development, involved in one way or another. And that is a good thing. Keeps them 'off the streets at night' and in an, at least somewhat, positive environment. My church has 7 Masses each week (most, even the 7:30 AM Mass, are at least 75% full), they have Bible studies one or two nights a week on various subjects, high school groups, middle school groups, CCD (Sunday School), small group fellowships that meet in the home, young adult groups, various service activities (St. Vincent de Paul Society, Ladies of Charity, Aramatheans, Knights of Columbus, etc., etc.), sponsor a soup kitchen, have an elementary/middle school, provide sponsorship for a High School, and so on. They have a full-time staff of 20 to support about 4,000 parishoners. And the current major effort is on a multimillion dollar capital improvement project to build a community center, so that they can do more. It isn't like what it was 25 years ago, let me tell you... But, in TWI's favor (at least back in the 'good old days'): TWI, even though it had the faulty doctrine, was loose enough and free enough to keep young folks involved and feeling that they were doing something important. I know when I got involved (somewhat later than you were, to be sure), it was a family environment. Everybody wanted to hang out with each other. You'd watch the game together, go on witnessing trips down to the clubs on Friday and Saturday night, you'd work on each others cars, get together and cook dinner and hang out playing cards, help with the window-washing business of somebody if you had time, etc. It was considered a true blessing to be with one another. It was NOT a matter of obligation, it was a matter of genuinely preferring to associate one with another. And, at least in my experience, we tried to build each other up and walk according to the great commandment: love God and love each other. I know that this wasn't TWI as a whole...but at least it was the way that we were in our neck of the woods. But that all changed over time, didn't it? What would TWI have for young people these days? They've got to watch their words, watch their actions, watch everything, so as not to get reproved and/or marked and avoided, right? It's a different place now. Are they even allowed to have fun anymore...? It seems to me that the mainstream churches have, in large measure, gotten the message right finally: love God and love each other. It seems to me that TWI lost that key thing (particularly between individuals).

If they were insecure or if they were trying to propagandize/desensitize, they wouldn't choose this method for doing their work....that is making a joke of it. Think about it, the politically-correct crowd would likely decry this as making a mockery of peoples' sexual preferences. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of fun for the kids, to me!

And one other thing that really ticks Wierwilites off...when you quote the Word to them to show that they are in error. So, since I enjoy doing just that, I give you the following: 13 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. 14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. Because of this, you will receive a very severe condemnation." 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves. 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.' 17 Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, 'If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.' 19 You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it; 21 one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it; 22 one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it. 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! 25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean. 27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth. 28 Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing. 29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, 30 and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.' 31 Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; 32 now fill up what your ancestors measured out! 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? 34 Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35 so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Of course, they will feel free to ignore the above (from Matt 23), because it isn't addressed to them :(

Benvenuto a Greasespot!

One thing to be said about that letter. They forgot one thing for the prospective students:

Yahoo! is hardly the only company to use web beacons: Also called a Web bug or a pixel tag or a clear GIF. Used in combination with cookies, a Web beacon is an often-transparent graphic image, usually no larger than 1 pixel x 1 pixel, that is placed on a Web site or in an e-mail that is used to monitor the behavior of the user visiting the Web site or sending the e-mail. When the HTML code for the Web beacon points to a site to retrieve the image, at the same time it can pass along information such as the IP address of the computer that retrieved the image, the time the Web beacon was viewed and for how long, the type of browser that retrieved the image and previously set cookie values. Web beacons are typically used by a third-party to monitor the activity of a site. A Web beacon can be detected by viewing the source code of a Web page and looking for any IMG tags that load from a different server than the rest of the site. Turning off the browser's cookies will prevent Web beacons from tracking the user's activity. The Web beacon will still account for an anonymous visit, but the user's unique information will not be recorded. Most, repeat, most companies use those little web beacons to track usage. The best way to defeat them is through updating your "hosts" file...thus advertisers will not have access to your machine. See the following: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

My IMHO, I think the thing that angers them the most begins when their whited sepulchres are challenged and refuted. What culminates their anger is when they are no longer able to intimidate and shout down the person who dares to challenge them.

Thanks, Clay for that Google query. Interesting, one of the pages was a link to a Bullinger article: The One Great Requirement Of The Word: "Rightly Dividing" It By: E. W. Bullinger The one great requirement of the Word is grounded on the fact that it is “the Word of truth.” And this fact is so stated as to imply that, unless the Word is thus rightly divided we shall not get “truth”; and that we shall get its truth only in proportion to the measure in which we divide it rightly. The Requirement is thus stated in 2 Tim. ii. 15: “Give diligence to present thyself approved to God, a workman having no cause to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.” The word in question here is ojrqotomou~nta (orthotomounta).16 As this word occurs in no Greek writer, or even elsewhere in the New Testament, we can get little or no help from outside, and are confined to Biblical usage. It is used twice in the Septuagint for the Hebrew rv^y* (ya?shar), to be right, or straight. In Prov. iii. 6; xi. 5, the Hebrew is Piel (or causative), to make right (as in 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. Prov. xv. 21. Isa. xl. 3; xlv. 2,13). But it is the Greek word that we have to do with here, in 2 Tim. ii. 15; and we cannot get away from the fact that tevmnw (temno?) means to cut; or, from the fact that we cannot cut without dividing. To divide belongs to the very nature of the act of cutting. Even as applied to directing one’s way, it implies that we divide off one way from others-because we desire to follow the right way and avoid the wrong. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2649 FWIW...Apparently Wierwille didn't get the idea to use the specific usage rather than the lemma of the word on his own. Curious how he didn't cite the specific usage for all greek words and used the lemma in most cases (pneuma, hagios, doulos, yada yada). sort of sounds like a bit more cut-and-paste, doesn't it?

Woo-Hoo! Yipee for Mike!!! But the issue I raised earlier, I'm sure he discussed the conjugation of the word in the PFAL, as well. I'd still like to hear some feedback on!

I think it's tremendous progress when he makes a caveat, Nothing against you, just the utter B/S Joseph Smith bewitched those poor people with.

And PFAL is absolutely right. oρθοτομοuντα is the present tense, active voice, participle form (used as an adjective with the accusative case, singular person, masculine gender) of the lemma "oρθοτομoω" I usually prefer listing the lemme, as they are what you'll find listed in the dictionaries. I'm sure he discussed the conjugation of the word in the PFAL, as well. ((rolls eyes)) My oversight for not mentioning that. My apologies if there was any confusion.

And that, WordWolf, is why I wasn't even planning to give it the distinction of a reply. I think that comment should stand on its own for people to evaluate... Somehow I think that very few will come to different conclusions than either you or I have.

Oh, by the way, for you orthotomeo fans. You know the only place it's used in the Greek NT is in 2 Tim 2:15. In the Septuagint, it is also used just once: Proverbs 3:6, In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

cutting straight takes a lot of work

Allan, I don't think Belle owes anything. With due respect, there is a little history of antagonism...one which will hopefully remain history... On the other hand, since you've re-registered (didn't look up the history till now), your posts seem a lot more polite than before. So my hat's off to you...we can disagree while remaining polite about it, can't we...