Are you easily mislead?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]This is not the Christian faith, but the stereotype of what anti-Christian's project onto Christians.

It may be a stereotype, but it’s one that some Christians project themselves (including a number on here: you’ve surely read their posts, so I don’t need to bother to name them). They project it not only to non-Christians but to other Christians ...[text shortened]... Luther so eloquently said: “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God have mercy. Amen.”

[/b]

Yep.

Originally posted by telerion
Sounds like more ressentiment

Now that's a word I could use more often!

Originally posted by bbarr
Indeed.

"I want this little ego of mine, this precious sphere of consciousness, to last forever. I want to be rewarded for the sacrifices I make, so that they are not really sacrifices. I want those who harm me to be punished. I want to have a purpose given to me, and a path laid out before me, so that I do not have to find a way to imbue my own life w ...[text shortened]... o be special, I want to be loved, I want to be a child for eternity."

Welcome to your faith.

I want this little ego of mine, this precious sphere of consciousness, to last forever.

If ego is me, then yes, I confess. But, deny it if you like, but every human being wants to last forever. It is natural.

I want to be rewarded for the sacrifices I make, so that they are not really sacrifices.

Don't you? I made a sacrafice to quit smoking. My health has improved. This was rewarding. Likewise, what I give up by being obdient to God is also good for me. He would ask for no less. It is for my good. I quit stealing, lying, immorality...this is also rewarding..."not really sacrafices"..I don't follow you here.

I want those who harm me to be punished.

Not really. I can honestly say that, believe it or not.

I want to have a purpose given to me, and a path laid out before me, so that I do not have to find a way to imbue my own life with meaning, or deal with the terror of being truly free.

I confess here also. except for the part of not dealing with true freedom. I agree with Colleti here. I will not insult you by telling you about the freedom you think you have. Dosen't everyone want a purpose and a path laid out?

I want to be special, I want to be loved, I want to be a child for eternity."

Again, I think everyone wants to be loved. In fact it has been proven that humans can't get enough love. But I don't want to be a child for eternity.

Welcome to your faith.

If this is my "faith" as you put it, I'll take it. If you want to find your own path then be well and I wish you the best.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]I want this little ego of mine, this precious sphere of consciousness, to last forever.

If ego is me, then yes, I confess. But, deny it if you like, but every human being wants to last forever. It is natural.

I want to be rewarded for the sacrifices I make, so that they are not really sacrifices.

Don't you? I made a sacrafice to q ...[text shortened]... u put it, I'll take it. If you want to find your own path then be well and I wish you the best.[/b]

Doesn’t everyone want a purpose and a path laid out?

No—

At least if you mean one that I am supposed to follow blindly without ever questioning it. I frankly think that part of being fully human is that sometimes you have to get off the path and hack through the brush. That’s how you grow and discover yourself. Because we are each a unique individual, no one can hand us a boiler-plate “meaning” for our life—we have to discover and make that for ourselves (I think it’s a bit of both).

That doesn’t mean that we don’t look for maps and signposts to find our way. Religion and philosophy help do that; your map is a Christian one. But “the map is not the territory,” and meaning in your life comes as you interact with the territory (and I’m including the spiritual dimension of that territory here as well). Meaning comes out of that existential interaction, and so is highly individual.

Those people who have to have their path and purpose all laid out tend to become cultic followers; even within a non-cult (in the general sense of the word) religion, you will find people in it who act as cultic followers. Non-cultic religions discourage that.

Re the ego: bbarr is speaking of the “little ego”—the conditioned and fabricated personality self that we carry around and can come to think we are. This is the ego St. Paul talks about when he says: “I live, but no longer I….” In Greek, that “no longer I” is ouketi ego. The whole line in Greek is: Zo de ouketi ego, ze de en emoi Christos. If, in the Kingdom there is “no male or female, Jew or Greek,” etc. what other, even less basic, aspects of who we think we are will be relinquished? I think every true spiritual path leads through that ouketi ego; call it “tough spirituality.”

Many people do, however, speak of immortality or eternal life as if they don’t expect to relinquish that ego. By relinquish, I just mean let go of. The ego is a useful servant, not to be destroyed or damaged (you see that in some people who have developed a “false humility,” for example, or who have been abused as children). But it is not the whole of “I am” (eimi) or “I live” (zo). It is not the psuche (psyche), which is generally translated as soul, and is your deepest whole self--and in "eastern" religions, and some Christian forms as well, is simply a "stream" in the much larger whole of the "ocean."

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Doesn’t everyone want a purpose and a path laid out?

No—

At least if you mean one that I am supposed to follow blindly without ever questioning it. I frankly think that part of being fully human is that sometimes you have to get off the path and hack through the brush. That’s how you grow and discover yourself. Because we are each a unique in ...[text shortened]... some Christian forms as well, is simply a "stream" in the much larger whole of the "ocean."[/b]

No, I don't mean follow blindly. Faith is only as good as the object of your faith. My path is set only in the sense that I trust what God has in store for me. I don't know what lies ahead, only who is leading. Then life becomes an adventure.
Yes Paul was talking about self in the verse you mentioned. But what he was referring to was that he gave up his "ego/self" to follow after Christ.
I know the psuche to be the "mind". Believing/faith comes from the heart, also the mind, but the part that is the "seat" of the real you.

But you are correct, the ego/self will be relinquished as the individual is "transformed" by the "renewing" of the mind. This is what is meant by putting on the mind of Christ.

Rom 12:1-2
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And do not be conformed (fashioned) to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(NKJ)

The word "transformed" is .....

3339 metamorphoo (met-am-or-fo'-o)

from 3326 and 3445; to transform (literally or figuratively, "metamorphose"

KJV-- change, transfigure, transform.

which is where we get the word metamorphasis, like a caterpillar being transformed in his cocoon.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No, I don't mean follow blindly. Faith is only as good as the object of your faith. My path is set only in the sense that I trust what God has in store for me. I don't know what lies ahead, only who is leading. Then life becomes an adventure.
Yes Paul was talking about self in the verse you mentioned. But what he was referring to was that he gave up h ...[text shortened]... hich is where we get the word metamorphasis, like a caterpillar being transformed in his cocoon.

I didn't think you followed blindly. 🙂 In a sense, a path may be "given" me, or discovered by me--but I need to choose to take it, or another, everyday. That existential choice, and the responsibility it entails, can neither be truly escaped from, nor abrogated.

I saw a lot of myself in bbarr's post; so much so that I printed it out to keep as a "reminder" of my attempts to escape from my existential responsibility. The only time I ever got frustrated with Coletti on here (he's a good guy, in my book) was when he attempted to dismiss bbarr's post, rather than responding to it as you did.

Yes, psuche is also translated as mind. In John it is translated (in NRS anyway) 5 times as "life." My one lexicon says it also means self or innermost being. When John talks, therefore about laying down one's "life" (psuche) for one's friend, I think he means more than just physical/biological life.

Originally posted by vistesd
I didn't think you followed blindly. 🙂 In a sense, a path may be "given" me, or discovered by me--but I need to choose to take it, or another, everyday. That existential choice, and the responsibility it entails, can neither be truly escaped from, nor abrogated.

I saw a lot of myself in bbarr's post; so much so that I printed it out to keep as a ...[text shortened]... s "life" (psuche) for one's friend, I think he means more than just physical/biological life.

I saw a little of myself in Bbarrs post too. But not neccessarily in a negative sense. Just fyi, the "heart" which is what we "believe" with, is figuritive. Of course that should be obvious.

Rom 10:10
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(NKJ)

The heart is what I call, the "seat" of the mind where we make our real decisions. Mental assent vs deep inner conviction, if you will. I always thought of the psuche as ego or self, in the sense of "carnal'.

Gal 2:20
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I(ego) who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I(zao) now live in the flesh I(zao) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
(NKJ)

This is from my PC study bible...

2198 zao (dzah'-o);

a primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively):

KJV-- life (-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.

1473 ego (eg-o'😉;

a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic):

KJV-- I, me. For the other cases and the plural see 1691, 1698, 1700, 2248, 2249, 2254, 2257, etc.




🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I saw a little of myself in Bbarrs post too. But not neccessarily in a negative sense. Just fyi, the "heart" which is what we "believe" with, is figuritive. Of course that should be obvious.

Rom 10:10
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(NKJ)

The heart is what I call, th ...[text shortened]... or the other cases and the plural see 1691, 1698, 1700, 2248, 2249, 2254, 2257, etc.




🙂

1473 ego (eg-o'😉;

a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic):

This is certainly accurate as far as it goes. But if you note the syntax in Galatians 2:20, Paul seems to be using ego in an unusual way; I'm not convinced it is being used in the emphatic sense with a verb (e.g., ego eimi.) I’m speaking from memory here, but my Greek grammar noted that the definite article is not always used with a noun, even when it is to be understood—and for exegetes, that seems to be a judgment call. For example, in Gal. 2:20, the phrase “but lives in me Christ,” I think it would be perfectly grammatical to insert the definite article to read it “the Christ” (ho Christos). And I wonder about that possibility with the “ego” in this verse.

I think there is seldom a clear-cut “one right way” to translate from Greek (or probably any other language) into English, although occasionally there may be. This is emphatically true for Hebrew. Other times, a particular translation seems to become “normative” among translators over time. (and I think these are sometimes doctrinal decisions). Also, English words change their meanings, or at least their connotations, over time.

I think it is very important to at least recognize alternative possibilities. psuche, again, for example. In the same 5 Johanine verses that I mentioned, the KJV also translates psuche, not as mind, soul or self—but as life. But in John 12:27, it is translated as “soul” by the KJV, RSV and NRS; and by “heart” by the NIV. All in all (according to Young’s Analytical Concordance it is translated in the KJV as “soul” 58 times, as “life” 40 times, as “mind” 3 times, and as “heart” once.

I clicked through 347 uses of ego in the Greek, and only found the following (in addition to, possibly, Gal. 2:20) where it is not joined to a verb:

Mark 14:19 They began to be distressed and to say to him one after another, "Surely, not I?"

Acts 7:32 'I [am] the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Moses began to tremble and did not dare to look.

Acts 9:10 Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I [am], Lord."

Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Romans 7:24 Wretched man that I [am]! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord-- that the wife should not separate from her husband

1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord-- that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them-- though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

1 Timothy 1:11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Revelation 22:13 I [am] the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

The question is, in Gal. 2:20, was Paul using ego in a simple “designatory” sense (e.g., as it appears to be in Rom. 7:20, and in the Corinthian passages), or in a special sense? Or is it simply “tied” to zo? I think it is an open hermeneutical question, with no one-and-only “right” solution—but for which I have indicated my preference of understanding.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]1473 ego (eg-o'😉;

a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic):

This is certainly accurate as far as it goes. But if you note the syntax in Galatians 2:20, Paul seems to be using ego in an unusual way; I'm not convinced it is being used in the emphatic sense with a verb (e.g., ego eimi.) I’m speaking ...[text shortened]... no one-and-only “right” solution—but for which I have indicated my preference of understanding.[/b]

I know what you mean when you say these words are used differently. This is the fault of the translators. For example, "hell" is literally "grave" almost everywhere in the bible.
There are many words with poor translation, that is why when I do a serious study, I have to have my interlinear, concordance, etc.🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I know what you mean when you say these words are used differently. This is the fault of the translators. For example, "hell" is literally "grave" almost everywhere in the bible.
There are many words with poor translation, that is why when I do a serious study, I have to have my interlinear, concordance, etc.🙂

I don’t think it is always the translators’ fault. I really can’t speak to the Greek that much, but the Hebrew is a language which by its very structure carries alternative shades and possibilities and layers of meaning. That is why traditional Jewish exegesis seeks out all those possible meanings, rather than trying to identify the single “right” one. That is one of the reasons why Jewish exegesis seems so foreign, and is so hard to explain to someone who hasn’t really studied it (and I am a bare neophyte), or who has grown up with it.

A really good (though, for me anyway, not a really user-friendly) source on-line is the Perseus Project (I forget the http citation) which draws on the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek lexionary, and traces the various uses of the Greek, including non-Biblical usages. For example: trace the underlying sense of the Greek pisteo (noun: pistis), generally translated as “believe” or “faith” (note that pisteo is an active verb—“to faith” rather than to “have” faith). Then trace the etymology of the English word “believe,” both older and more contemporary usages. I think you will find some things that confirm your personal understanding of “faith,” but that might challenge some other pretty common understandings….

I understand about needing all the resources: I once spent two days trying to unpack a single line in Greek, till I found a particular grammatical rule.... 😛

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t think it is always the translators’ fault. I really can’t speak to the Greek that much, but the Hebrew is a language which by its very structure carries alternative shades and possibilities and layers of meaning. That is why traditional Jewish exegesis seeks out all those possible meanings, rather than trying to identify the single “right” o ...[text shortened]... al understanding of “faith,” but that might challenge some other pretty common understandings….

Thanks ...will do....I would suggest "Figures of Speech" in the bible by E.W.Bullinger....I also know that along with the study of Hebrew and Greek words, it is important to understand the culture at the time.
There is much to learn in this area as well, like a son getting his inheritence before the father died, etc.
I am trying to remember a book I used to have that was great. I think it was Eastern Orientalisms by Bishop Pillai, but am not certain of the spelling.