Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: Masters of Theology

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Nope. . .history doesn't alter the meaning or usage of the words in the NT.
maybe we're using 'history' differently... words rarely pop into existence, so virtually all words have a history... when we read a dictionary, we're seeing how the word was used in the past, it's history...

consider the phrase 'star-spangled banner'... you could translate it literally, as a flag with lots of stars... but most people would say there's a history there, that it usually refers to the national flag of the usa...
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Nope. . .all Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) and God did not give imperfections in his word.
but I think you'll agree that the manuscripts we have today have imperfections... otherwise, no need for wescott, nestle, etc...
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
This is exactly the protestant understanding I was talking about.
Ephesians ch. 2 clearly talks about works of the Mosaic Law and not "works/physical actions" as it can be seen if one reads with honesty and the whole chapter not only the verses 8 and 9. Why is Saint Paul talking about circumcision in the verses that follow? Who, between the Jews and Gentiles, would boast? And why?
The issue in gospel salvation is salvation by grace alone through faith, or salvation by human merit.

Human merit is anything that man does to effect his salvation.

The NT denies that man can do anything to effect his salvation, that it is all of grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9).

What man does do in the gospel is practice the obedience of faith through the enablement of the Holy Spirit by which he is sanctified, grows in the likeness of Christ.
But sanctification is not salvation, sanctification follows salvation, is the result of salvation and the
evidence of salvation. So that where there is no obedience of faith, we know there is no faith and,
therefore, no salvation has taken place.

Salvation is from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9; 1Th 1:10) on the guilt of sin at the Final Judgment.

Some confuse the obedience of faith which is the manifestation of salvation already given
with works necessary to earn salvation not already given by grace through faith.
 
Last edited:

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
It matters not how the Greeks used it, what matters is how the NT uses it.
I have no idea why you would say this... to me, it's like saying english words are not related to what english speakers are saying...

do nt writers sometimes use a word in a special way? yes, certainly... does that mean that the word then completely looses any meaning that the greek-on-the-street attached to it?

I'm not saying nt words can only mean what the philosophers said... I say the philo guys *influenced* them.

the original readers of John's gospel didn't have a greek dictionary (imo) or easy access to the rest of the bible... so, (imo) they went with meanings they used everyday and stuff they'd heard...
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
That is an unproven assumption.

It likewise overlooks God's providential preservation of his word for his people.
true for the first part. now, let's turn it around... what copy of the greek nt do you use, and do you believe it's perfect? why so?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
from the little bits of translating I've done, one thing is clear to me... exact correspondence from one language to another rarely happens...
My husband is a very smart man. He is. And one reason he never merged into organized Christianity is because when he would engage Christians, they would have the all-or-nothing approach. And any other shade of meaning he would apply to the text beyond their limited, English-translated understanding (rooted in the current cultural thoughts on it, rooted in upbringing and dogma), then they would accuse him of being an atheist. Seriously. You either go to church, say your prayers, read your Bible, go through all those motions (with the right heart too)... or you don't believe God even exists. All or nothing.

One thing *I* get accused of is not understanding or having read the text. I was once just as conservative, if not more than those who accuse me. Yes, I understand conservative thought because I aligned myself with it, at one point... I just reject its absolute nature now. There are conservative principle I agree with, but not the absolute nature of those principles. And you know what the most amazing part of that is? I reject absolution because of my understanding of Jesus' teachings on a whole - the Bible itself allows me to reject all or nothing thought. That's my conviction, however.

So, my husband when we first met online, asked me how long I'd been a Christian. He said he never spoke to someone who didn't make him feel wrong in what he thought - even though we disagreed on some things. When we started dating, and he was visiting me one time, he came to my church - he was apprehensive, but more curious as to what my church environment must be like to allow me to think that way. He was impressed. He said "I've never heard anyone preach like that before. And I didn't feel judged for expressing something different."

That's the beauty of an evil, ahem, I mean liberal church that allows free thought among Christians, without stigmatizing (by Christian, I am assuming agreement with the orthodox understanding of the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ). In Bible Study, I would hear both conservative and liberal slanted ideas - and no one jumps up and screams heretic. There is disagreement, looking through two completely different lenses - and this is not seen as compromise, but healthy discussion. And for someone who comes in off the street, they are likely going to feel far more welcome than a church that feels the need to correct everyone.


Well, what I was going to say in response to this quote, was that he had some friends, foreign students that come to study here. And he says he always hears "What is wrong with you Americans? Everything is this way or that, only two solutions to a problem." The adversarial mindset here, the black and white mindset (and that includes radical liberals, whose openminded really means anything opposite of conservative thought), is not common - it is quite unique to us. It's perplexing to most other people - and when I say adversarial, I don't mean just religion - but anything, if you don't dogmatically side on one side of the issue or the other, then you are compromising. If you are the "on one hand, but on the other hand" type people, try to see the truth in both sides - doesn't bode well here. Believe me, I have tried, with many various topics on social media. If I see a problem or unintended consequence with an idea, then it is assumed that I'm against the idea altogether. No.... I just think there's a better way to do it. But you either agree 100%, no criticism, with every word, or you don't agree at all. That is not absolute concerning people here, but it seems the norm.

He had one friend who went to Russia to live, being his homeland, and he went to see him. And he started to learn Russian. And he said what you find, is that if you translate what you would say in English here to Russian, they would be confused. For example, if he went up and said "I need a BigNTasty meal." (Yes, they have McD) They would be offended by that - "no, you don't NEED it, who do you think you are?" On the flip side, if here in the states he expressed his desire to order in a way that Russians would expect, he would be deemed highly rude. Russians are far more blunt and honest in expression, than we are. They don't hide their feelings for the sake of conforming to polite society. There are vulgar words that in America are often attributed to anyone that is nonconforming to polite standards - even when those standards mean overt lying to spare feelings. And even if tact was used, the person is still deemed rude. Most people in this country do not like being challenged - at least, that's the overall impression I get.

They think differently. They have different ways of doing things. In Moscow, the traffic caters to the pedestrian, not the other way around. Here, pedestrians are seen almost like a lower class of citizen, in some areas. Because you're not an independant, free American if you're not transporting yourself - even if that means going into debt for a car, and a lot of other expenses you could avoid by riding the bus, IF that were possible for you. And believe me, I've walked enough to know - there is the oppositional, adversarial mindset concerning that relationship. Someone was going too fast in a parking lot, and I stepped out from the store. I had earphones on, but he yelled at me. Well, maybe I shouldn't have earphones on, but you would think people would be going slowing enough IN A PARKING LOT that they could safely and easily stop - I don't know, with the possibility of kids running around and all, you'd think people would be a little more attentive to their speed. That goes for neighborhood roads, that have signs REMINDING you there are kids in the area. I lived on a road in Clarksburg, that had a 10 mph limit, and VERY narrow - people would still fly on that road at 25, 30 mph or more. If a child runs out from behind a parked car after a ball unexpectedly... well, yeah. Not that way in Moscow - they may get frustrated, but they don't expect pedestrians to be out of their way. Russia has a more collective mindset - we have an individualistic mindset. Everyone should get out of our way - there, they expect to be inconvenienced, so it's not the same source of stress for them.

Yeah, I rambled, but I bring up my husband's experiences there to show that here in the modern world, with modern languages, a literal rendering is not going to be enough, and even THAT is a feat. You have to factor culture. You have to factor societal norms. Otherwise you will not understand the text you are reading, as it communicates in it's context. You will be basically making up your own reality, concerning what it says - you would be applying YOUR culture, the text you read is filtered through YOUR experience, and any BIAS you may have about the culture, unless you actually learn the context.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I don't think the principle is the same.
The "works/physical actions" that protestants refer to are good deeds or moral effort to earn salvation (they see even the sacraments as "works", right?).
The difference between the Jews and Gentiles
The gospel issue in salvation is not about the difference between Jews and Gentiles.
It's about the difference between faith and works/physical actions as the basis of salvation.

is not that the Jews are morally better persons than the Gentiles, but that the Jews are God's chosen people (and they felt superior to all other people because of their election) and that God made a covenant with them. So,
how does one enter in covenant with God? Through works of Torah or by faith in the sacrifice of Christ?
One is declared justified--rightwise standing with God--righteous--saved from God's wrath on guilt of sin
and thereby enters the new covenant by grace through the gift of faith (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), not by the performance of deeds.

We are made righteous (i.e., declcared not guilty) by grace through faith, not deeds, and enter the new covenant just as Abraham was made righteous by grace through faith (Ge 15:6), not deeds, and entered the Abrahamic covenant.

Religious deeds do not merit salvation, they are only a manifestation of unmerited salvation already received by free grace only through the gift of faith.

I am sure that Saint Paul would have been against the catholic abuses, but not that he would call sacraments "works" or that we would regard a person who strives to live a holy life as a "legalist".
I suspect striving to live a holy life is not what is meant by "legalist," but that it means striving to earn salvation by living a holy life, making it another and an anathematized gospel.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
He quotes some greek poetry in his talk on the aeropagus... So at least
his sermon, in that case, was influenced by philosophers/poets...
Quoting something does not make it an "influence" anymore than quoting a God-hater makes his quote an "influence."

And you know that. . .
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
maybe we're using 'history' differently... words rarely pop into existence, so virtually all words have a history... when we read a dictionary, we're seeing how the word was used in the past, it's history...

consider the phrase 'star-spangled banner'... you could translate it literally, as a flag with lots of stars... but most people would say there's a history there, that it usually refers to the national flag of the usa...
The national flag of the USA is a flag with lots of stars, making it a "star-spangled banner,"
and the phrase is used of the US flag because it is titled that in the national anthem,
making it a commonly-known title, not based on the flag itself but on the anthem.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
but I think you'll agree that the manuscripts we have today have imperfections... otherwise, no need for wescott, nestle, etc...
If they are immaterial, which they are, it is irrelevant.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
There are conservative principle I agree with, but not the absolute nature of those principles. And you know what the most amazing part of that is? I reject absolution because of my understanding of Jesus' teachings on a whole - the Bible itself allows me to reject all or nothing thought. That's my conviction, however.
yes, totally hear you there! and it's not like I went looking for difficulties... things just came up in the course of earnest study... like the lxx differing from the hebrew... which was right?
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I have no idea why you would say this... to me, it's like saying english words are not related to what english speakers are saying...

do nt writers sometimes use a word in a special way? yes, certainly... does that mean that the word then completely looses any meaning that the greek-on-the-street attached to it?

I'm not saying nt words can only mean what the philosophers said... I say the
philo guys *influenced* them.

the original readers of John's gospel didn't have a greek dictionary (imo) or easy access to the rest of the bible... so, (imo) they
went with meanings they used everyday and stuff they'd heard...
For a correct understanding of the NT, the issue is not its meaning on the street, but its NT meaning.
The Scriptural meaning, for the sake of the church, is my focus.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
true for the first part. now, let's turn it around... what copy of the greek nt do you use, and
do you believe it's perfect? why so?
I believe the imperfections are immaterial and are, therefore, irrelevant.
 
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
but I think you'll agree that the manuscripts we have today have imperfections... otherwise, no need for wescott, nestle, etc...
wecott, netle, etc also have imperfections.... see other notes here...
I don't know the answer to your question.
But I do know that the Protestant understanding of "works" is works of (obedience to) Biblical commands, both of the Mosaic law and of the NT.
Paul uses it most often to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law because he so often had to deal with Judaizers, who were trying to bring Christians under obedience to circumcision, if not to the whole Mosaic law, in order to be saved.
It also applies to obedience to the NT commands when they are viewed as the basis of salvation, which is through faith by grace, and not by works/physical actions (Eph 2:8-9) of obedience to Biblical commands.
protestant and other all have imperfections, to put it very conservatively. or simply, no one can be saved by anyone's religion nor by religious experience nor by any set of rules nor guidelines....
simplest: whoever has the son, has life. whoever has not the son, has not life. true life in spirit in truth. all completely in line, totally in accordance with all of yahweh's WORD. (not man's).
My husband is a very smart man. He is. And one reason he never merged into organized Christianity is because when he would engage Christians, they would have the all-or-nothing approach. And any other shade of meaning he would apply to the text beyond their limited, English-translated understanding (rooted in the current cultural thoughts on it, rooted in upbringing and dogma), then they would accuse him of being an atheist. Seriously. You either go to church, say your prayers, read your Bible, go through all those motions (with the right heart too)... or you don't believe God even exists. All or nothing.

One thing *I* get accused of is not understanding or having read the text. I was once just as conservative, if not more than those who accuse me. Yes, I understand conservative thought because I aligned myself with it, at one point... I just reject its absolute nature now. There are conservative principle I agree with, but not the absolute nature of those principles. And you know what the most amazing part of that is? I reject absolution because of my understanding of Jesus' teachings on a whole - the Bible itself allows me to reject all or nothing thought. That's my conviction, however.

So, my husband when we first met online, asked me how long I'd been a Christian. He said he never spoke to someone who didn't make him feel wrong in what he thought - even though we disagreed on some things. When we started dating, and he was visiting me one time, he came to my church - he was apprehensive, but more curious as to what my church environment must be like to allow me to think that way. He was impressed. He said "I've never heard anyone preach like that before. And I didn't feel judged for expressing something different."
That's the beauty of an evil, ahem, I mean liberal church that allows free thought among Christians, without stigmatizing (by Christian, I am assuming agreement with the orthodox understanding of the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ). In Bible Study, I would hear both conservative and liberal slanted ideas - and no one jumps up and screams heretic. There is disagreement, looking through two completely different lenses - and this is not seen as compromise, but healthy discussion. And for someone who comes in off the street, they are likely going to feel far more welcome than a church that feels the need to correct everyone.
Well, what I was going to say in response to this quote, was that he had some friends, foreign students that come to study here. And he says he always hears "What is wrong with you Americans? Everything is this way or that, only two solutions to a problem." The adversarial mindset here, the black and white mindset (and that includes radical liberals, whose openminded really means anything opposite of conservative thought), is not common - it is quite unique to us. It's perplexing to most other people - and when I say adversarial, I don't mean just religion - but anything, if you don't dogmatically side on one side of the issue or the other, then you are compromising. If you are the "on one hand, but on the other hand" type people, try to see the truth in both sides - doesn't bode well here. Believe me, I have tried, with many various topics on social media. If I see a problem or unintended consequence with an idea, then it is assumed that I'm against the idea altogether. No.... I just think there's a better way to do it. But you either agree 100%, no criticism, with every word, or you don't agree at all. That is not absolute concerning people here, but it seems the norm.
He had one friend who went to Russia to live, being his homeland, and he went to see him. And he started to learn Russian. And he said what you find, is that if you translate what you would say in English here to Russian, they would be confused. For example, if he went up and said "I need a BigNTasty meal." (Yes, they have McD) They would be offended by that - "no, you don't NEED it, who do you think you are?" On the flip side, if here in the states he expressed his desire to order in a way that Russians would expect, he would be deemed highly rude. Russians are far more blunt and honest in expression, than we are. They don't hide their feelings for the sake of conforming to polite society. There are vulgar words that in America are often attributed to anyone that is nonconforming to polite standards - even when those standards mean overt lying to spare feelings. And even if tact was used, the person is still deemed rude. Most people in this country do not like being challenged - at least, that's the overall impression I get.

They think differently. They have different ways of doing things. In Moscow, the traffic caters to the pedestrian, not the other way around. Here, pedestrians are seen almost like a lower class of citizen, in some areas. Because you're not an independant, free American if you're not transporting yourself - even if that means going into debt for a car, and a lot of other expenses you could avoid by riding the bus, IF that were possible for you. And believe me, I've walked enough to know - there is the oppositional, adversarial mindset concerning that relationship. Someone was going too fast in a parking lot, and I stepped out from the store. I had earphones on, but he yelled at me. Well, maybe I shouldn't have earphones on, but you would think people would be going slowing enough IN A PARKING LOT that they could safely and easily stop - I don't know, with the possibility of kids running around and all, you'd think people would be a little more attentive to their speed. That goes for neighborhood roads, that have signs REMINDING you there are kids in the area. I lived on a road in Clarksburg, that had a 10 mph limit, and VERY narrow - people would still fly on that road at 25, 30 mph or more. If a child runs out from behind a parked car after a ball unexpectedly... well, yeah. Not that way in Moscow - they may get frustrated, but they don't expect pedestrians to be out of their way. Russia has a more collective mindset - we have an individualistic mindset. Everyone should get out of our way - there, they expect to be inconvenienced, so it's not the same source of stress for them.

Yeah, I rambled, but I bring up my husband's experiences there to show that here in the modern world, with modern languages, a literal rendering is not going to be enough, and even THAT is a feat. You have to factor culture. You have to factor societal norms. Otherwise you will not understand the text you are reading, as it communicates in it's context. You will be basically making up your own reality, concerning what it says - you would be applying YOUR culture, the text you read is filtered through YOUR experience, and any BIAS you may have about the culture, unless you actually learn the context.
a literal rendering (meaning) is sufficient, but no one has /knows the literal rendering(meaning) except yahweh
and those to whom he reveals as he pleases.
without knowing anything of culture, an emissary of yahweh learns from yahweh and speaks his WORD and does what yahweh does. whatever yahweh says and does is perfect, and that is what he trains his children to do/ to live/ abiding in him closely in touch in communication in oneness/ union in yahshua.

the disciples did not make people they preached to comfortable.
yahshua did not make the people he preached to, taught, spoke to comfortable. their conscience was stricken, they were convicted of their life of sin, so that they would repent/change entirely their life purpose willingly and completely at yahweh's WORD.

people who are comfortable (like as in a social gospel) (a false gospel) have little chance of being saved.

real joy, peace and righteousness with yahshua, in union with him, literal union, is unknown to the world.

but the ekklesia rejoice in the truth, in him, in union with him unknown by mankind.

the churches that are comfortable with their lives, with the world, are deadly fakes.

the real disciples suffer death every day, death to the world, and the world dead to them,

and share in the sufferings of yahshua hamashiach even unto death...... willingly and joyously!

the enemy is ruling earth and the governments on earth. yahweh is close, and will execute his vengeance soon upon all the earth. as soon as the last of those who are appointed before creation to die for their faith have been martyred. JOYOUSLY! in YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH!
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Quoting something does not make it an "influence" anymore than quoting a God-hater makes his quote an "influence."

And you know that. . .
Paul's talk uses the poet's quote as a high-point or summing up section... I think it's an influence on the talk.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
yes, totally hear you there! and it's not like I went looking for difficulties... things just came up in the course of earnest study... like the lxx differing from the hebrew... which was right?
Jesus encourages us to ask questions, and be child-like (and what child isn't spouting off "why..." every ten minutes ; ) )

And yet, that very nature He tells us will liberate us is discouraged in many churches. :(
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
The national flag of the USA is a flag with lots of stars, making it a "star-spangled banner,"
and the phrase is used of the US flag because it is titled that in the national anthem,
making it a commonly-known title, not based on the flag itself but on the anthem.
yes! the history behind the phrase!

and so, when you say 'star-spangled banner', people don't normally think of a generic flag with stars on it...
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
My husband is a very smart man. He is. And one reason he never merged into organized Christianity is because when he would engage Christians, they would have the all-or-nothing approach. And any other shade of meaning he would apply to the text beyond their limited, English-translated understanding (rooted in the current cultural thoughts on it, rooted in upbringing and dogma), then they would accuse him of being an atheist. Seriously. You either go to church, say your prayers, read your Bible, go through all those motions (with the right heart too)... or you don't believe God even exists. All or nothing.

One thing *I* get accused of is not understanding or having read the text. I was once just as conservative, if not more than those who accuse me. Yes, I understand conservative thought because I aligned myself with it, at one point... I just reject its absolute nature now. There are conservative principle I agree with, but not the absolute nature of those principles. And you know what the most amazing part of that is? I reject absolution because of my understanding of Jesus' teachings on a whole - the Bible itself allows me to reject all or nothing thought. That's my conviction, however.

So, my husband when we first met online, asked me how long I'd been a Christian. He said he never spoke to someone who didn't make him feel wrong in what he thought - even though we disagreed on some things. When we started dating, and he was visiting me one time, he came to my church - he was apprehensive, but more curious as to what my church environment must be like to allow me to think that way. He was impressed. He said "I've never heard anyone preach like that before. And I didn't feel judged for expressing something different."

That's the beauty of an evil, ahem, I mean liberal church that allows free thought among Christians, without stigmatizing (by Christian,
I am assuming agreement with the orthodox understanding of the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ).
Agreement on the orthodox fundamentals regarding the life, death and resurrection of Christ is all that is necessary.

That leaves lots of room for growth for each individual in understanding the word of God.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
If they are immaterial, which they are, it is irrelevant.
well, we were talking about perfection, and a flaw, relevant or no, is imperfection...

some text differences are (imo) very material, like the longer ending of Mark...

so, does the bible say what God wants it to say? yes. Does perfection have to enter into it? imo, no.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Jesus encourages us to ask questions,
I'm not familiar with Jesus encouraging us to ask questions.

Where do you find that?

and be child-like (and what child isn't spouting off "why..." every ten minutes ; ) )
Childlike is about being believing, trusting and submissive even if you don't understand.
 
Last edited: