Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@GP
“Zoe I thank you again for this most excellent, exquisite, edifying , educational and eridite exegesis of the opening verses of John chapter 1.”
That is all you can do? Pat yourself on the back?
Technician // January 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM
There is nothing more dangerous than an overgrown ego in people who takes themselves too seriously!!
Did I say ..@Dictionary,@ROK, @Zoe,@GP, @Hopi, @ MME, @ BushTea, @ David,@John…..or to any one else on this blog?
NO I DID NOT!!
Yet still, look at the response…..
Dictionary // January 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Such as yโself Techie?
And…….
Dictionary // January 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM
(In short, onlookers, yet another rhetorical fallacy on personalities; in a context that โ as was put up step by step this morning so no excuses about โI did not notice/click the linksโ can be made โ demands serious comparative difficulties analysis on the merits. What does that suggest on the actual balance on the merits? And,as to the gravity of what is at stake, Our Lord wants that it is no profit to gain โthe whole worldโ but lose oneโs very soul. these are issues over truths that we know or should know and where they point on our duty tot he truth and the right. [Diversions on personalities are simply distracting red herrings.])
“Who the cap fit….let them wear it!!”
What was that old saying that Granny loved so much?……..
“Throw out a sprat….and catch a whale”……….in this case Moby Dick!!
The irony is that, that quote could apply to so many of the posters on BU…but…well……let the record show!
ROK
Can I ask you a few questions?
1- Who are you fighting with Rok? GP?
2- Cant you see that GP ignores you, and does not respond to you?
3- Why do you think that GP is childish or running Rok? Because he does not respond to your nonsense?
4 Do you realize that while trying to show that the man is a fool you are simultaneously demonstrating that you are yourself the jackass.
5-You attack everything the man says, and he ignores you all the time, and just continues to walk on the high road.
6- Is this the same GP that early last year that you said was the smartest man on BU when GP tried to ask Zoe not to be so agressive?
7- Do you think that you can take away the man’s scholarship or respect or influence on BU by your stupid unwarranted verbal attacks?
Rok you make many of us laugh.
Birth Of Reggae Music/Trikey Girl/Trikey Version (*/**/***)
(*/**/***)=Max Romeo/Jah Batta/Bullwackie sound๏ปฟ di big ting
Dictionary
I believe that I asked for clarification following your comments on science. It appears that you have taken offense given your comment “see the pattern of discourtesy and strawmanising, onlookers?”. You posit that having posted a link and assuming that I have not read it, I am being discourteous.
My simple response is that:
(1) I generally find your writing tedious to read ( probably above my intellectual level).
(2) So given that any request for clarification is regarded as discourtesy or some other nefarious action, I will refrain from directing any enquiry or other comments to you from now on.
@Anointed One
Thanks for your feedback. Well noted.
Do You Remember/I Spy/Maliscious Intent (*/**/***)
(*/**/***)=Eek-A-Mouse/Linval Thompson/Scientist
This is an interesting article I just found on line by chance about Christians while working on a Lecture on 1 John for next Sunday evening
The first appearance of the word Christian is in Acts 11:25-26 where Luke informs us, “So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.” In Antioch they were disciples who were called Christians. Disciples is what they were; Christians is what somebody began to call them. From this point in historical record, Luke did not begin to refer to them as Christians, but he continued to refer to them as disciples.
Matthew uses disciples 72 times, Mark 44 times, Luke in his Gospel 38 times, John 77 times, and Luke in Acts 30 times. However, in the remaining 22 portions of the New Testament writings, the word is not used at all, which would indicate that disciple was no proper name either.
The self-designations used by inspired writers were believers (or those that believe, etc.); brothers ยฌ 132 times; saints ยฌ 50 times; church ยฌ85 times; and other such designations as elect, servants, and those “that call upon the name of the Lord.” There is no indication, however, that any of these selfยฌdesignations were to be considered as a proper name for Jesus’ followers.
From the writings of those times, it is seen that the adjectival ending -ianos denoted the adherents of an individual or party. So, adherents to the Christ were called Christianos, Christians. It is a Roman ending which would not likely originate among the Jews, especially in Judea. It is evident that the name did not originate with the disciples themselves, but it was applied by those outside their community, either in derision or as a sort of nickname, a common folk designation. Certainly, the unbelieving Jews would not use the name of their Messiah to apply to those whom they considered as adherents to a false messiah. So, we had to wait about ten years for the church to spread among the pagan Gentiles for such a popular designation to come into use. Among the unbelieving Jews, disciples were scorned as “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).
No doubt, the pagans of Antioch were familiar with the Jewish religion in the local synagogues. Now, a new religion had separated itself from the synagogue proclaiming salvation through one Jesus, the Christ. So, the people began to distinguish them from the Jews as adherents of Christ-Christianos, Christians. Groups may protest a designation given by outsiders but later accept it, as was the case with Lutherans, Protestants, and Mormons. Secular history reveals that the disciples later gave universal acceptance to this name since it honors Christ. Like the cross of shame, which became a venerated symbol of God’s love, this name rose from its unlikely beginning to the highest place of honor.
Christian is used only three times in the Scriptures
Let us consider the three mentions of Christian in the Scriptures. In Acts 11:26, as we have noted already, the first use of the designation was evidently by the pagan populace of Antioch in Syria rather than by the disciples themselves.
In its second mention, we hear the timeยฌhonored exclamation of King Agrippa in King James Version language, “Almost thou persuades” me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). This has been interpreted by common people as a sincere admission by Agrippa. But if he were so sincere, why did he break off Paul’s discourse? Being King, he could call for, as a command performance, the continuation of Paul’s speech. Evidently, he was making no admission of being almost converted to Jesus.
Instead of seeing a convicted king, we see a man who is being put on the spot by a religious zealot. His dignity is being insulted; so he scoffs at Paul, “In a short time you think to make me a Christian!” (RSV). In other words, Agrippa was saying, “Paul, you think that in one short presentation of your fanatical claims you can make a Christian of me,” and the inflection of his voice as he sneered the word Christian must have been insulting. Notice, too, that Paul avoided using the name as applying to himself in his reply to Agrippa.
For the third use of Christian, we look to 1 Peter 4:16, but the entire chapter serves as a context. Believers were suffering fiery ordeals of persecution for Christ. They were being accused of various wrong-doings, and listed among them was that of being a Christian. To encourage these persecuted saints, Peter wrote, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischiefยฌmaker; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.” Being called Christians in a derogatory manner was a part of the reproach heaped upon them. Peter urged that they glorify God under that name of reproach which they had not chosen. Righteous persons have always received taunting and derisive appellations from those who oppose them. Their worth is proved by being unashamed to wear those disparaging names.
In spite of all of this which I have brought to your attention, I do not object to being called a Christian, for I am an adherent of Christ. I just refuse to accept it as a proper name given for us to wear to distinguish us in our religion. And, by the way, I do object to deliberate failure to capitalize Christian. Adjectives formed from proper nouns should be capitalized in correct grammar. Christ is a proper noun; hence, Christian should not be written as christian.
Now, I come to a more important point of this treatise. This name Chnstian has become a mental and emotional block to prevent our acceptance of others who follow Christ.
We define who is a Christian and how to become a Christian, but the Scriptures do not accommodate our definitions. In telling how to become a Christian, we use the examples of the conversion of those on Pentecost, the Samaritans, the Ethiopian treasurer, Cornelius, and Saul. Their acceptance of Jesus made them believers and disciples, but not Christians, for no one had ever been called a Christian at the time of their conversion.
After defining a Christian as one who hears, believes, repents, confesses faith, and is baptized, we have consistently refused any acceptance of, or fellowship with, any who have not measured up to our scruples about those actions of obedience. We have drawn a convenient line there that excludes most of the Christian world as being unbelievers and non-Christians.
When we think of a person as a believer or disciple, that convenient sectarian line disappears. While a believer/disciple will obey the “five steps” as he learns and is convinced of the need, he will also continue to learn and obey all the Scriptural directives for his discipleship as long as he lives. He will never cross the line into the ultimate. At what point can we say that he became a believer/disciple whom we may accept? Is it not when his faith is initiated causing him to take his first feeble steps to follow? He is then a believer and follower and, hopefully, he will continue to grow and advance in his relationship with Christ. I can accept him as a believer/disciple even though I might consider him to be at a less advanced stage than I enjoy. We can grow together. I am not to become his judge, especially to judge him by the artificial standard that I have made by defining when a person becomes a Christian. He is a believer and disciple-learner, follower, adherent-at every point on the road of his spiritual progress. The concept that I am rejecting is that he becomes a Christian, whom I can accept, only at one point in his spiritual journey, and that, thereafter, he is a Christian whether he progresses as a learner and follower or not.
Jesus told us to make disciples, not Christians. There may be no difference in the two, but we have made one to accommodate our sectarian distinctions.
@Dicktionary……….DO you know that the same AMEN you pronounce so loudly came from the Ancient Black Ones? Maybe if you knew you’d never repeat it!
Did you know that the Mathematics and Philosophy attributed to Pythagoreas and Plato and Aristotle came out from the Black Ancients?
Oh the mind of the Black man who refuses to study his past, hence himself!
What a waste!
And while we are at the GREATNESS of the Black Mind let it be known that it is a BLACK MAN ..PHILIP EMEAGWALI who made it possible for us to interface thru this medium that we today call the INTERNET. Not some white boy!
Still have not found what I wanted for my I John study but this is relevant to debunk some of the nonsense certain folk on this blog like to spew out about Jesus and his choice of disciples.
Itโs plain to me that Jesus chose the apostles because they were TEACHABLE– not be cause they were simpletons. It is commonly belived that Chritians or Pastors or Bible people should be stupid simpletons. Folk who could not get in to science and other university programs, you know the high school drop outs and those not smart enough to ace the 11 plus exam e.g like the fisherman that Jesus chose.
But praise God 1 Coriithians 1 says not MANY noble etc it doesnt say not ANY. So folk like Zoe and Dictionary and I get a little chance to look in.
PRAISE GOD THE GOSPEL IS ALSO FOR BRIGHT BOYS AND EX HARRISONIANS TOO—– THAT ARE TEACHABLE! Folk who were willing under the guidance of the Indwelling Resident Tutor to SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES AND STUDY THE WORD as they sought to GROW IN GRACE as advocatec in 2 Peter 3:18.
As stubborn, ignorant, parochial, tribal, petty, selfish and slow to learn as they were, Jesus’ disciples were still more teachable than the religious establishment. They might not be the valedictorians at Pharisee U, but they could be molded, remade and made useful in the Jesus movement. They could learn about grace, the cross, the resurrection and the Kingdom of God present and at work in Jesus.
The religious leaders concluded that Jesus was demonic. Later, they would demand a โsignโ in order to โbelieve.โ
When they do โbelieve,โ John says Jesus does not entrust himself to them.
But a broken Peter says โForgive meโฆ.for I am a sinful man.โ To Peter, Jesus can say, โWhen you recoverโฆ.strengthen your brothers.โ To Peter, Jesus can say โDo you love me?โฆFeed my sheep.โ
In other words, despite the tragic-comic characteristics of the disciples, they are still teachable.
THE KEY WORD HERE IS TEACHABLE
Salvation is not for simpletons and simple minded and simple folk IT IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE TEACHABLE!
FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO GROW IN GRACE AND IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Thomas will make his speech, but he will kneel before the resurrected Jesus. They would all desert Jesus and head back to Galilee, but when they met the resurrected Lord, they could become bold and fearless world-changers.
These are men who would be slow to accept that the Kingdom of God was offered to the Gentiles, but it is Peter in Acts 10 who says he has learned that God is no respecter of persons.
I bring all of this to mind to say that to the extent that we become like the Pharisees and members of the religious establishment of Jesus day, we probably are not the kind of persons Jesus is going to be able to entrust with the Kingdom.
As I said, the Pharisees and others were often devoid, Biblically knowledgeable persons of strong convictions. They were sometimes prepared to put Jesus into one of their theological categories. They werenโt teachable on the level Jesus wanted his disciples to be teachable.
ARE WE TEACHABLE TODAY OR ARE WE LIKE THE PHARISEES OF JESUS’ DAY?
Remember that Jesus sent out the apostles to minister the words and works of the Kingdom in Israel before he sent them on their worldwide mission. He wasnโt wasting his time in the villages of Israel. He was training and preparing his apostles. He was working on the project of making them teachable men.
Jesus chose whom he did so that he could begin with men who believed, and had an openness to Jesus.
From that beginning, Jesus would blow up their paradigms and revolutionize their world.
We are not in the unique historical roles of the apostles, but we are to be the kind of persons whom, having been with Jesus, our lives are more like him and less like the religious establishment of his day and ours.
Which brings me to the little confession at the beginning of this post. The disciples all came to see they needed God. Not that they HAD HIM, or UNDERSTOOD HIM, but that they needed this wild, unconfined, out-of-the-box God in ways they hadnโt even known they needed him before they met Jesus.
The establishment assessed Jesus on their terms.
The disciples came to Jesus all kinds of ways, but in the end, they became the Apostles because they were able to live as men who NEEDED GOD, and the God they needed met them in Jesus.
Who cares about all that hogwash Hopi? Being black is not an advantage it is A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE.
On Thursday last I was offered a Professorship at a Medical school in Aruba to teach Biochemistry. Everything was arranged, all I had to do is send a page of my passort and a photo for them to purchase the ticket to fly me in yesterday for orientation and to start teaching today.
But all that changed when they saw my photo ……..you see I AM BLACK!
Best wishes and a Happy New Year to all.
Have no fear, I am still here. On the sidelines!!
the hood!
@ Georgie Porgie
Why would they need a page of your passport and a photo to purchase a ticket? You NEVER send or give anyone copies of your passport pages. You should have been suspicious.
You should have bought the ticket and be reimbursed when you arrived and proved who you were. If you were not whom you said, end of case. If you had a bonafide letter of offer, based on qualifications and experience, you have a case for discrimination.
But of course, I uderstand that the medical schools on Saba and Aruba are small privately owned by rich Americans, whose children were not accepted anywhere. So they opened their own schools. Is this true?
plagiarism paganism colonialism and racism is rife in the world wide white wild wild west… just look at the history of christianity
Love Me Forever Riddim Compilation Pt.1 (*)
(*)=Brigadier Jerry, Carlton Livingston, DJ, Dancehall, Dub, Junior Reid, Lee Van Cliff, Lone Ranger, Lovers, Reggae, Rockers,Sister Carol
@ Pat
I dont know for sure why they needed a page of my passport and a photo. I guessed it was to purchase a ticket. But I wanted the work and to be back in the islands.
When I went to the Cook Islands in 2006 the school that sent me asked for the same. In fact I emailed the same file.
No way would I buy a ticket and expect these guys to reimburse me on arrival.
And no they had not sent a bonafide letter of offer; we discussed the issue per telephonem, and they were to send the offer. These guys are usually too smart for these things, my friend.
Though most of the offshore Caribbean medical schools pay well- and tax free too, many are indeed owned by rich mostly Indians and a few rich Americans.
In one or two cases it is true that they are owned by persons whose children were not accepted in US schools, and so they opened their own schools.
But in most cases, the owners were former teachers at Ross (the first of these schools) or other schools who on seeing that medical schools was a lucrative business, opened their own schools.
Most of them will tale black students, but they want to project a WHITE OR INDIANISH IMAGE.
The few black owned schools treat you even worse! So my point stands being black has never ONCE in my life been an advantage to me.
I will get back to the prostate page in due course Patrick for today! You nearly knock me out of my chair with laughter at that one Pat. LOL
@Pat
As far as I am concerned GP may not be out of the woods yet. Consider that they have his page and photo. Even though his communication may seem genuine, it could still be a scam. I would advise him to watch his back.
All this talk about black, they barely get what they want. I should also tell him that he may not even know when his info is used fraudulently. Happened to one of our volunteers already.
Hope for your sake you are correct. Our volunteer went through a similar experience thinking that she was talking to the UN.
There is no need for a page from your passport to do anything, not even purchase a ticket.
@ Hopi
*************************************
@Bush Tea,
Since when did Hopi claim any religion to be the correct one? Again I have always said that the Ancients preceded the johnnies-come-lately and despite the fact that the invaders tried to destroy all the evidence, some of it is still there. It still resonates with โSOMEโ of us.
And Where does your brilliant starting point lead us?
Why donโt we just throw everything out the window and start with Bush-teaโs religion?
*************************************
If Bush Tea accused you of claiming any religion to be the correct one – I hereby apologize humbly.
I concur that you have always claimed that the (black) ancients came before the ‘johnies-come-lately’ etc etc
By the way, I whole heartedly agree with you in principle, but fail to grasp the bigger point….. johnie’s pedigree is well established after all…
With respect to the starting point;
You would probably agree that after three years of talking at one another on related topics we have made about the same progress as the Israelis and Palestinians in their relationships.
This is because the ‘discussion’ is largely about persons with fixed and inflexible positions shouting (mostly insults) at each other.
Mine (and Anonymous’) comment was purely a LOGICAL position that says that if there are literally hundreds of challengers vying for a single position (that of being THE TRUTH), then a LOGICAL starting point is probably one that assumes them ALL to be impostors; begins with a clean slate, and SEEKS genuinely to discover the elusive truth.
…can’t see why you (or anyone) would take that as a slight on any position that they may hold.
With respect to Bush Tea’s religion….
What is that?
Do you get the impression that BT is pushing any philosophy, religion, or principles on BU?
…that would be interesting, because BT frankly could not care less what you or others believe!
Admittedly, the bushman loves a stimulating discussion (or argument or even a fight LOL)
…but I know where BT stands…. and that is FAR too valuable and special to be wasted on proselyting.
If anything, BT is the ‘Jonah’ kind of prophet….
So take it easy Hopi…. the Truth is liberating, one can start from any point if you REALLY want to find it.
Impostors on the other hand need to ‘defend’ their positions from all and sundry- even from genuine questioners…
@ GP….
Can you explain this further?
…’We define who is a Christian and how to become a Christian, but the Scriptures do not accommodate our definitions. In telling how to become a Christian, we use the examples of the conversion of those on Pentecost, the Samaritans, the Ethiopian treasurer, Cornelius, and Saul. Their acceptance of Jesus made them believers and disciples, but not Christians, for no one had ever been called a Christian at the time of their conversion.
After defining a Christian as one who hears, believes, repents, confesses faith, and is baptized, we have consistently refused any acceptance of, or fellowship with, any who have not measured up to our scruples about those actions of obedience. We have drawn a convenient line there that excludes most of the Christian world as being unbelievers and non-Christians.”
Techie
You have asked me to explain a passage from a quotation in an article that I found on line, after a few days previously telling me plainly that I should not presume to know what some one else is thinking. Is this not so Sir? Ah lie? LOL
Personally I think that there are more important issues in the article on which to comment, but I assume that you are having difficulty with this section of the aticle which is indeed very vague.
Now a simpleton like me would just grasp the segments that make sense and forget the rest. LOL. But I guess I am stupid.
I interpret him to mean though that since the Bible only uses the word โChristianโ three times, that there is no plain definition of Christian, seeing that the term Christian was essentially and originally a derogatory one given to believers by others to distinguish them from other Jews who were Judaisers
And it is indeed the truth that the Scriptures do not accommodate the definitions that most folk have of what a Christian is. The best definition that I have ever heard that is consonant or congruent with NT scriptures is that a Christian is a regenerated, baptized (by immersion) believer. Note one does not have to be baptized to become a Christian, but Christians get baptized to indicate that they have died to sin and have risen up to a new life in Christ.
I think also that the author is correctly pointing out that acceptance of Jesus made folk believers and disciples according to the NT record in Acts. And it is true that believers themselves did not initially or for a good time refer to themselves as Christian.
I agree that believers (or Christians- a term not used in my church group much) are those who have heard, believed, repented, confessed faith, and been baptized by immersion.
I agree that believers as defined above have consistently refused any acceptance of, or fellowship with, any who have not measured up to our scruples about those actions of obedience, and that we have drawn a line there that excludes most of Christendom as being unbelievers and non-Christians. I believe too that believers can show you a number of clear straight forward texts to support this position.
Believers who seek to follow the book (like those who descended from the original protestors and rebels from the RC state controlled church) are called inflexible and other names for their positions. All denominations claim to follow the Bible; but most donโt. Those who try or seek to do so are scoffed at and mocked and called all kinds of names by others whose views are set in stone and concrete alsoโฆโฆ.but usually with no proper Biblical warrant.
@ GP….
You opened the door by posting it..lol.
Thanks though, I more grasped you explanation (as usual) than the original.
@ ROK
You are right. One is wared in the back of the passport, that it is a government document and what you can do with it. Dr. Porgie should be careful that others are not travelling on his ID with a fake passport. Bajan passports are easy to forge. Now the Canadians have this new scanning system….
If he is travelling on a US passport, it will be difficult to forge, but to photocopy it? That is even a bigger no-no than here.
If I had no letter of offer, there is absolutly no way I would forward that type of personal information and a picture to anyone. Not even with a letter of offer.
Techie
Man you win– as usual LOL
Pat
Im sure that your advice and that of Mr King is good solid advice.
But I had communicated with the VP of the school previously, and I this request is not unusual in the industry. I think I did the same in 2004 when I went to Bonaire, and Im sure Idid when I went to the Cooks islands in 2006.
Anyway, having discovered I was black they were happy to change thier mind.
The former owner of SABA and MUA-Nevis requested a phot for his application. He was advertising every term as staff would come and leave or be unsuitable, but he never gave me a look in at any of his schools.
Yet when he sold them to a certain group he recommended me for a pick at a school in the Cayman islands.
@GP……………Its such a pity that others can see you as a BLACK Man yet you refuse to look in the mirror. If it were Blacks who denied you a job because of your skin colour, that puts you and them in the same boat because suffer from the same mindset i.e. you see no good coming from BLACKS. Remember your own quote [hogwash]. It it was other who denied you, then welcome to the real world.
@Bush tea……I for one would never want to change johnnie’s pedigree.
After 2 years of talking at each other, I still know where I stand and it is nowhere near that place that you’ve alluded to. [Maybe such is your comfort zone]
Since your LOGICAL position assumes that ALL are imposters, what is the ORIGINAL/REAL/TRUTH. Since you seem to be the only one here with LOGIC, maybe you are the only one here with TRUTH as well.
And since your TRUTH [which according to you is elusive yet you found it] has liberated you, why don’t you get busy liberating others who are in need? Or are you a selfish man?
AND
the TRUTH is not elusive. For most of us it is very uncomfortable [ even to those who believe that they have been liberated by it].
As for proselytizing, Hopi don’t give a rat’s ass what you or others’ philosophies/beliefs align with, but I will always defend against proven LIES.
And since that Jonah kind of prophet is just another made-up story, you too are left with just the illusion of your self-importance.
While others shout insults at each other, BT, the LOGICAL saint quietly condescends!
But just know that there are levels of Konsciousness that are higher than your LOGIC!
Have yaself a good night!
I would like to say a few things re Dictionary’s posts.
First, this man has an amazing God-given intellectual capacity, for, not just Physics, which he has an M.Sc, in, and he is so widely read, in other deeply relevant subjects, i.e., Theology, Comparative Religions, Philosophy, World History, Logic, etc, etc, that, I believe it would be difficult to find ‘one’ man so competently gifted, in such a wide array of subjects as him.
BUT, what is equally amazing, IS, his GRASP, understanding, knowledge, of the various subjects, which is beyond question, and his intellectual capacity to articulate them as he does!
Now, I appreciate, that when one is so gifted, as he is, Brilliant, it is difficult to follow what obviously comes so easy for him, as his linguistic style, naturally, would overwhelm most of us, even other bright men, have problems following him, let alone us lessor mortals!
The point though, is this. What little Dictionary has taken from his valuable time to share with BU, from his vast reservoir of knowledge and *understanding* would otherwise take most of us combined, decades upon decades to scratch the surface of; he IS an amazing blessing to US, as a fellow Caribbean national, and, we should at least be very greatful to him, and for him.
The links and files that he has so graciously given on BU, are a WEALTH of information, deeply profound, that many would NOT otherwise have access to; even if you don’t agree with him, and I dare say, IT IS because you do not UNDERSTAND the depth and soundness of what he has repeatedly tried to explain, are, literally invaluable to all of us, IF, we truly want to come to grips, with properly assessing conflicting *Worldviews* as, there IS no other way to START out in this exercise of discovering Truth, then I would strongly suggest, you take the time, to, at least read the links he has given. It will not be easy reading, it is deeply intellectual, but, so necessary to learn the principles of sound ‘reasoning’ based on logical absolutes, etc, etc.
I personally have dozens of pdf files he sent me over the last few years; most of which I have not being able to start reading; they are a TREASURE, each and every one of them.
Dictionary’s GRASP of Logic, reasoning, critical thought, coherence, etc, etc, in evaluating the matter of evolution vs creation, and many other subjects, are absolutely necessary, if any one is to properly begin making any honest assessment of the FACTS, evidence, and to be able to coherently come to reasonable conclusions, on ANY of the subjects we have been debating here on BU.
Than you Dictionary, for what little you have shared with us on BU, I say ‘little’ because I know there is so much more we can learn from you!
And it is FREE!
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two (2) equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the need for thought.
Henri Poincare (1854-1912)
Just saw that on the back of my MetroCard.
Oh….this is not bait so please don’t bite, just something I wanted to share……and it too, is ……FREE!!
Enjoy the Big Apple!!
@ John
LOL…..if I was an Eskimo!
Born and bred Enterprise/Miami beach man..lol.
Should be going to the exhibit on Wednesday……..weather permitting.
As an observer, can I further ask a few more questions?
Was it a BT that wrote a roll of pithle as he played the role of enlightened one perhaps?
Should folk who really know what they are talking about necessarily have to be unfixed and flexible in their positions just to please some illogical or incoherent persons or any others?
How can it be logical or brilliant to believe that if there are literally hundreds of challengers vying for a single position (that of being THE TRUTH), then a LOGICAL starting point is probably one that assumes them ALL are impostors? Is it not also logical to think that one of the literally hundreds of challengers vying for a single position might actually be correct?
What is a clean slate? How is that achieved? Is it achieved just because persons who clain to be brilliant or logical decree that such a ting really and truly exists?
And if the โdiscussionโ is largely about persons with fixed and inflexible positions, how long will the slate be clean?
From my following blogs on BU, BT does care what others believe, and those whose mind he can not change he has insulted, mocked scorned and referred to them as having fixed and inflexible positions. Does he not also have fixed and inflexible positions , or is he weak as water, and as poor as piss!
Admitting that he loves a stimulating discussion (or argument or even a fight) means what exactly?
What is a โJonahโ kind of prophet? Do you mean a disobedient inflexible man who refused to carry out a duty that God gave him to do because (by his own admission) he knew that if the hearers of his message should repent that God would not judge them?
Is the writer of this garbage not spitting in the air only to see his sputum descend into his face, or is it that he does not understand that Jonah was inflexible?
Is the writer of this garbage aware that he is priding himself on the same things that he condemn others for, i.e inflexibility?
Who are the โimpostersโ of whom he speaks?
Is it not true that in a debate that participants ought to be able toโ โdefendโ their positions from all and sundryโ?
How would the same โimpostersโ of whom he speaks really know who are genuine questioners, or genuine trouble makers?
Do people think before they type on this blog? Or do they just write what comes to mind without thinking things through thoroughly?
Here we go again!!
Onlookers:
Amazing!
If ever we needed proof that the root problems underlying what has come up in this thread are spiritual and moral not intellectual, the past day or so has provided it.
Above, we can see directly in thread — instead of having to follow links — what did in fact take decades to work through and synthesise into an integrated, relatively simple framework for thinking about basic beliefs and alternatives and how to choose. And, the invitation and challenge were given to embark on that process of level-playing field comparative difficulties analysis; the only effective basis for warranting something so large-scale, complex and foundational as a worldview.
So, what do we see from the ever so confident — and ever so long since prophesied about — skeptical scoffers against the Christian worldview: more dismissals without serious consideration, often laced with personalities.
In short, folks, day ‘ent serious, at least not in the sense of being intellectually responsible.
Sad.
Anyway, there is one who has raised something worth following up:
AO [I think s/he will like that!]: How can it be logical or brilliant to believe that if there are literally hundreds of challengers vying for a single position (that of being THE TRUTH), then a LOGICAL starting point is probably one that assumes them ALL are impostors? Is it not also logical to think that one of the literally hundreds of challengers vying for a single position might actually be correct?
What is a clean slate? How is that achieved? Is it achieved just because persons who clain to be brilliant or logical decree that such a ting really and truly exists?
And if the โdiscussionโ is largely about persons with fixed and inflexible positions, how long will the slate be clean?
Prof Wiggins — assuming you are watching, cowboy boots kicked up on a table and quaffing a beer [‘Stripe or Banks?] — I think we have a potential student here!
1 –> The radical skeptical assumption involved in dismissing all worldviews as assumed false boils down to a bastardised version of Descartes’: if I can doubt I will set to one side.
2 –> but at least, Descartes was looking for an anchor point of credible certainty.
3 –> In one sense he found it, as he was certain — morally so, I may add — that he is as he is there thinking the thoughts of doubt. (In another, he did not, as the attempt to reduce to demonstrative certainty ends up in the sort of — reduction to absurdity — infinite regress of skeptical challenges I have previously highlighted.)
4 –> So, we are back at the point that if we ask why one accepts A, one has to put up B, thence C, D, . . . That is, we must in the end stop at a faith-point Fx, where we hold some cluster of beliefs to be properly basic. [Fx means that there are many possible such systems: F0, F1, F2 . . . ]
5 –> Next, we go back to t a point that was underscored in our discussion with Mr Halshall: we may be far more certain of the warranted credibility as true of certain specific beliefs than we may be about global systems of thought.
6 –> My favourite example on this is from Josiah Royce via Elton Trueblood: Error exists. . . Warranted, Credible Truth [WCT] no 1.
7 –> To attempt to deny WCT 1 immediately ends up in giving an example of its truth, i.e it is undeniably true and self-evident. (So also, truth exists, and knowable truth exists.)
8 –> This last concept of self-evidence, in the history of ideas, we ultimately owe to . . . the much maligned and despised — and “misunderestimated” — Apostle Paul, in Rom 1:
Rom 1:19 . . . what may be known about God is plain to [rebellious man, i.e. men who suppress the truth and duty they know or should know], because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualitiesโhis eternal power and divine natureโhave been clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
9 –> We exist as going concerns, credibly inhabiting a real world: minded, enconscienced creatures living in a cosmos that gives every evidence of high art and elegant design as well as moral government. [For this last, just think of how when we quarrel we habitually and instinctively appeal to a fundamental equality and principle of fairness and respect].
10 –> Now, how can we best understand and explain that as to its roots? [Here I am thinking not of the logic of proof but that of abductive inference to best explanation among live options. this is most often discussed in a scientific context, but it is in fact the proper toolbox for historical/forensic inference, for most real world decision-making, and of worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties. (One of the tragedies of our education system is that as a rule, we are not explicitly equipped to understand Peirce’s three great movements of logic: abduction, deduction [and testing by comparison with the empirical world], induction to provisional synthesis.)
11 –> We will soon see that there is a pivotal concept, though one that is often derided today: self-evident truth as the context of the first principles of right reason and reasonable faith-point based worldviews.
12 –> What does that mean? Excerpting 0ur favourite whipping boy popular reference as just linked — I like citing hostile witnesses as a baseline:
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.
Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one’s belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident . . . .
A self-evident proposition cannot be denied without knowing that one contradicts oneself (provided one actually understands the proposition). An analytic proposition cannot be denied without a contradiction, but one may fail to know that there is a contradiction because it may be a contradiction that can be found only by a long and abstruse line of logical or mathematical reasoning. Most analytic propositions are very far from self-evident. Similarly, a self-evident proposition need not be analytic: my knowledge that I am conscious is self-evident but not analytic . . . .
For those who admit the existence [i.e. reality . . . long technical debate . . . ] of abstract concepts, the class of non-analytic self-evident truths can be regarded as truths of the understanding–truths revealing connections between the meanings of ideas.
13 –> The key phrase there is “truths of the understanding.”
14 –> For, starting from the certainty of our existence of minded, enconscienced creatures in a physically and morally coherent, intelligible world — we can deny such only on pain of reduction to utter self-referential incoherence and absurdity! — we are3 led to see that certain ideas evidently refer to clustered realities that we can understand in light of our experience of the world, and once we understand them clearly, they are seen to be true and deniable only on pain of indulging in incoherence of an order that we know or should know.
15 –> For instance, echoing Adler [a rich discussion!], we see that the finite whole is greater than any of its proper parts. We cannot understand parts or whiles in isolation, i.e the concepts are clustered. And, as we spiral in on understanding through our ever deepening experience of and reflection on the world, we come to see that it is true and deniable only on pain of incoherence, that the finite whole is greater than any of its proper parts.
[ . . . ]
16 –> Given the bad habit of refusing to follow links, I excerpt:
The little error in the beginning, made by Locke and Leibniz, perpetuated by Kant, and leading to the repudiation of any non-verbal or non-tautological truth having incorrigible certitude, consists in starting with a dichotomy instead of a trichotomy — a twofold instead of a threefold distinction of types of truth. In addition to merely verbal statements which, as tautologies, are uninstructive and need no support beyond the rules of language, and in addition to instructive statements which need support and certification, either from experience or by reasoning, there is a third class of statements which are non-tautological or instructive, on the one hand, and are also indemonstrable or self-evidently true, on the other. These are the statements that Euclid called “common notions,” that Aristotle called “axioms” or “first principles,” and that mediaeval thinkers called “propositions per se nota.”
One example will suffice to make this clear — the axiom or selfevident truth that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts. This proposition states our understanding of the relation between a finite whole and its parts. It is not a statement about the word “whole” or the word “part” but rather about our understanding of wholes and parts and their relation. All of the operative terms in the proposition are indefinable. We cannot express our understanding of a whole without reference to our understanding of its parts and our understanding that it is greater than any of its parts. We cannot express our understanding of parts without reference to our understanding of wholes and our understanding that a part is less than the whole of which it is a part.
When our understanding of an object that is indefinable (e.g., a whole) involves our understanding of another object that is indefinable (e.g., a part), and of the relation between them, that understanding is expressed in a self-evident proposition which is not trifling, uninstructive, or analytic, in Locke’s sense or Kant’s, for no definitions are involved. Nor is it a synthetic a priori judgment in Kant’s sense, even though it has incorrigible certitude; and it is certainly not synthetic a posteriori since, being intrinsically indemonstrable, it cannot be supported by statements offering empirical evidence or reasons.
The contemporary denial that there are any indisputable statements which are not merely verbal or tautological, together with the contemporary assertion that all non-tautological statements require extrinsic support or certification and that none has incorrigible certitude, is therefore falsified by the existence of a third type of statement, exemplified by the axiom or self-evident truth that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts, or that a part is less than the finite whole to which it belongs. It could as readily be exemplified by the self-evident truth that the good is the desirable, or that the desirable is the good — a statement that is known to be true entirely from an understanding of its terms, both of which are indefinables. One cannot say what the good is except by reference to desire, or what desire is except by reference to the good. The understanding of either involves the understanding of the other, and the understanding of both, each in relation to the other, is expressed in a proposition per se nota, i.e., self-evident or known to be true as soon as its terms are understood.
Such propositions are neither analytic nor synthetic in the modern sense of that dichotomy; for the predicate is neither contained in the definition of the subject, nor does it lie entirely outside the meaning of the subject. Axioms or self-evident truths are, furthermore, truths about objects understood, objects that can have instantiation in reality, and so they are not merely verbal. They are not a priori because they are based on experience, as all our knowledge and understanding is; yet they are not empirical or a posteriori in the sense that they can be falsified by experience or require empirical investigation for their confirmation. The little error in the beginning, which consists in a non-exhaustive dichotomy mistakenly regarded as exhaustive, is corrected when we substitute for it a trichotomy that distinguishes (i) merely verbal tautologies, (ii) statements of fact that require empirical support and can be empirically falsified, (iii) axiomatic statements, expressing indemonstrable truths of understanding which, while based upon experience, do not require empirical support and cannot be empirically falsified.[6]
17 –> Now you see some of what I have been reading and chewing on and boiling down over the years . . . and the above is a juicy Little Brown Sugar intellectual T-bone steak [are they still in business?] I can assure you. (But don’t try to take it all in at one gulp; you will choke.)
18 –> So, we see that there credibly are truths we know or should know that are foundational to a reasonable worldview. Among — I do not pretend to exhaust the list — these first premises and starting-points of right reason as morally and intellectually governed creatures are:
WCT 1: Error exists, so we should recognise that truth exists as what is there that ewe may be in error about; truth saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Thus also, we may make mistakes about it so we need and OUGHT to be open to well-warranted correction.
WCT 2: The first, intuitive principles of real-world logic: [a] A thing is what it is (the law of identity); [b] A thing cannot at once be and not-be (the law of non-contradiction); [c] A thing cannot neither be nor not-be (the law of the excluded middle). In that context — and Ari was discussing the nature of truth in Metaphysics 1011b, when he said what follows — [d] the truth is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. [Cf clarifications and rebuttals to challenges here. And, kindly note, we are specifically speaking with reference to the experienced real world, so extensions to empty-set contexts in which issues over contrasted empty sets arise, are irrelevant.]
WCT 3: We live in a real world that exists, and contains individual things that also have real existence. (Just try to deny that and see where it lands you!)
WCT 4: That which exists has a good and logically sufficient reason/explanation — notice the worldviews level application of abduction! — as to why: i.e. (i) if it begins to exist and/or may go out of existence, it has a cause; and (ii) it is possible for one or more necessary beings to exist which are the ultimate causal grounds for such contingent beings as in (i). (And, since it is credible that we live in a contingent observed world and we are contingent ourselves, both it and us require an adequate causal explanation in a non-contingent, self-existent order of existence. On this, the former Steady State universe model proposed that a material cosmos was that necessary being, but the want of evidence has led to the collapse of this view. the evidence pointing to the beginning of the cosmos in which we live therefore points also beyond the observed cosmos, to an order of existence that grounds it. And to posit that it comes from nothing — not space, time or matter or energy — by nothing and for nothing, is therefore absurd on its face. [Indeed, that is why multiverse models are now a popular notion.])
WCT 5: As reflecting on the example of a fire will illuminate, causal — as opposed to merely logical — factors may be: (i) necessary [without which the result is blocked], (ii) sufficient [once present the result will happen or exist], (iii) necessary and sufficient (e.g. air, fuel and heat are each necessary for and are jointly sufficient to initiate and/or sustain a fire).
WCT 6: Evil exists (NB: best understood as the objectionable, harmful and destructive privation and/or perversion of the good), so that — another Little Brown Sugar T-bone — governing moral truth, principle and obligation objectively exist. Thus also, only a worldview that has a grounding IS that is a proper foundation for OUGHT is a reasonable faith. [This insight is actually one of decisive ones that Paul was alluding to.]
WCT 7: We, our circumstances, challenges and our common world are at least in significant part intelligible and discuss-able in light of reason, experience and good first principles used with good inferential logic. (Try to deny it and see where this gets you!)
19 –> Worldviews are of course much broader than such a cluster of “first plausible”/ pretty certain WCT’s, even with considerable expansion. But, we have a cluster of criteria above that we deny on pain of evident absurdity, and which serve as a cluster of rock-hard basic facts and principles of reasoning that cut a considerable swath across the many worldview alternatives that are promoted in today’s post-/ultra-modern world.
20 –> Indeed, it turns out that the reason many ideologies and worldviews are prominent in today’s marketplace of ideas and values, is that the WCT’s above are being ignored or suppressed or dismissed.
21 –> For instance, on WCTs 1 and 2, radical relativism, and radical or selectively hyperskeptical views are utterly swept away.
22 –> Similarly, on WCT’s 3 – 5, worldview level — or “scientific” claims that boil down to denying cause-effect bonds, are swept away. In short, something that begins to exist does not come from nothing. And, given the material world that we observe credibly is not eternal or necessary, we need a good explanation of where our credibly complex and fine-tuned cosmos came from. And random quantum fluctuations in a primordial sub-cosmos etc, will have to compete on comparative difficulties with views that suggest that an intelligible, complexly ordered world finely balanced and set up to support life is the product of intelligence and intent.
23 –> Similarly, only views that properly ground morality are credible. This sharpest edge of the blade of the problem of the one and the many cuts clean across evolutionary materialism and other monist views [even non-materialistic ones]. Indeed, it is also a deep challenge for pantheism and panentheism.
24 –> Also — and I am astonished I have to even raise this one — views that imply or assert a primordial reality that is independent of an order of super-human beings/ gods/ daimons/ angels/ demiurges etc and then have to address the grounding of is and ought run seriously afoul of the Euthryphro dilemma.
25 –> Cutting to the chase scene, given the further facts of the prophesies in Is 53 etc [700+ BC] and the historical fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth: born of a virgin under the law and prophecies, loving and serving with “astonishing feats”, then dying on a cruel cross at he sentence of a kangaroo court [but dying for our sins], then rising with 500+ witnesses and pouring out His Spirit though whom millions have come to intimately, personally know and be transformed by God in the [ROK and Hopi et al: very Middle Eastern . . . and this — hawk nose, brown eyes, brown hair, “unvarnished mahogany” complexion and all — just might be nearly right] face of Jesus ever since, sets up Judaeo-Christian, Redemptive Trinitarian Monotheism as the worldview to beat.
____________
So, here I stand; and in a nutshell, here is why.
What solidly grounded alternative can you offer, once WCT’s 1 – 7 are in play — or can you overthrow them?
G’day
D
Hi David:
Ye olde mod pile strikes again . . .
Sorry
D
PS: On using Wikipedia wisely.
(I’se be old enough to remember how in the early days of the M’rat volcano crisis, the story here was “you can’t trust anything on the Internet. This served to try to shut out the devastating information that the US VDAP team had posted on walking out on what was going on. Now it is “All-yuh can’t take anything from Wikipedia etc.” But in fact, it is simply not true and in the end the youngsters who see that Wiki is often more sensible than its critics will reject the critics when they are right, as they had showed themselves not 100% reliable. So, we need to find a balanced view right off the startline. The just linked gives what looks like a first rough draft on that)
Footnote:
For those who imagine that, somehow, the Christian faith is dry as dust and empty of spiritual life and richness, here is one of the immortal hymns, this from Charles Wesley:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQeIGbKqiw8&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
The theologically rich, experientially profound lyrics:
And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Saviorโs blood?
Died He for me, who caused His painโ
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?โTis mystery all: thโImmortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
โTis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
โTis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.He left His Fatherโs throne above
So free, so infinite His graceโ
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adamโs helpless race:
โTis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
โTis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and natureโs night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening rayโ
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach thโeternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach thโeternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
G’day
D
Okay David
Mod pile again
All best
D
Oh yes:
Wiki on Amen . . .
The word Amen (pronounced /หษหหmษn/ or /หeษชหmษn/; Hebrew: ืึธืึตื, Modern Amen Tiberian โAmen ; Arabic: ุขู ููโ, โฤmฤซn ; “So be it; truly”) is a declaration of affirmation[1][2] found in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Its use in Judaism dates back to its earliest texts.[3] It has been generally adopted in Christian worship as a concluding word for prayers and hymns . . . Common English translations of the word amen include: “Verily”, “Truly”, “So say we all”, “So be it”, and “Let it be.” It can also be used colloquially to express strong agreement,[2] as in, for instance, amen to that.[4] . . . .
Amen, meaning so be it, is of Hebrew origin.[5][6] The word was imported into the Greek of the early Church from the Jewish synagogue.[1][7] From Greek, amen entered the other Western languages. According to a standard dictionary etymology, amen passed from Greek into Late Latin, and thence into English.[8]
The Hebrew word amen derives from the Hebrew verb โamanโ, a primitive root.[9] Grammarians frequently list โaman under its three consonants (โmn), which are identical to those of โamen.[8] This triliteral root (โmn) means to be firm, confirmed, reliable, faithful, have faith, believe. Two English words that derive from this root are:
a. amen, from Hebrew โamen (=truly, certainly); b. Mammon, from Aramaic mamona, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mamรดn, probably from earlier *maโmon (=? โsecurity, depositโ).
Both a and b derive from Hebrew โaman (=to be firm).[10]
The Talmud teaches homiletically that the word Amen is an acronym for ืื ืืื ื ืืื (โEl melekh neโeman, “God, trustworthy King”),[11] the phrase recited silently by an individual before reciting the Shma.
Popular among some theosophists and adherents of esoteric Christianity is the conjecture that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).[12][13][14] Some adherents of Eastern religions believe that amen shares roots with the Sanskrit word, aum[15]. There is no academic support for either of these views</b<[8]
I trust this helps set the record straight.
D
Thanks David. Did part 2 of the main remarks make it into the mod pile?
Say It Loud
If Thereโs A Hell Below, Weโre All Going To Go (*/**/***)
(*)=Lou Donaldson (**)=Curtis Mayfield (***)=Space Heaters
Natty Dread / Mr. Big(****)
(****)=Augustus Pablo/KingTubby
BURIAL (*)
(*)=Peter Tosh/=Bob Marley/Jacob Miller/Augustus Pablo/King Tubby
Got through, thanks David.
@Dictionary
You know, christians have a saying that the devil quotes the bible to suit him? I think the same can be said for the wiki.
Amen could never have a Hebrew beginning except for how they used the word.
Second, I told you about spiritual practices/food/fulfillment and you put up a song. Same thing as praying out loud in set verses. Nothing from the heart. No introspection. All outward, physical and material.
When we start to talk about spiritual matters, christians have this habit of running away and crying for magic and obeah, etc. Christianity keeps you out of touch with yourself.
Onlookers:
Sadly predictable. (And notice what is being tip-toed around quietly . .. )
Let us hear ROK’s qualifications to rule on Hebrew word roots and meanings.
Meanwhile, here is:
_____________
1] The Int’l Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
>> Amen
aฬ-menยด (in ritual speech and in singing a-men’, a’men) (ืืื, ‘aฬmeฬn; ฮฑฬฮผฮทฬฮฝ, ameฬฬn, = โtruly,โ โverilyโ): Is derived from the reflexive form of a verb meaning โto be firm,โ or โto prop.โ It occurs twice as a noun in Isa_65:16, where we have (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American)) โGod of truth.โ This rendering implies the pointing ‘oฬmeฬn or ‘eฬmuฬn i.e. โtruth,โ or โfaithfulness,โ a reading actually suggested by Cheyne and adopted by others. โAmenโ is generally used as an adverb of assent or confirmation – fiat, โso let it be.โ In Jer_28:6 the prophet endorses with it the words of Hananiah. Amen is employed when an individual or the whole nation confirms a covenant or oath recited in their presence (Num_5:22; Deu_27:15; Neh_5:13, etc.). It also occurs at the close of a psalm or book of psalms, or of a prayer.
That โAmenโ was appended to the doxology in the early church is evident both from Paul and Rev, and here again it took the form of a response by the hearers. The ritual of the installation of the Lamb (Rev_5:6-14) concludes with the Amen of the four beasts, and the four and twenty elders. It is also spoken after โYea: I come quicklyโ (Rev_22:20). And that Revelation reflects the practice of the church on earth, and not merely of an ideal, ascended community in heaven, may be concluded from 1Co_14:16, whence we gather that the lay brethren were expected to say โAmenโ to the address. (See Weizsรคcker’s The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, English translation, II, 289.)
>>
_________________
And,
2] STRONGS: H543
ืืื
‘aฬmeฬn
aw-mane’
From H539; sure; abstractly faithfulness; adverbially truly: – Amen, so be it, truth.
Also,
3] Brown Drivger Briggs:
H543
ืืื
‘aฬmeฬn
BDB Definition:
1) verily, truly, amen, so be it
Part of Speech: adverb
Root:
H539
ืืื
‘aฬman
BDB Definition:
1) to support, confirm, be faithful
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish
1a1a) foster-father (substantive)
1a1b) foster-mother, nurse
1a1c) pillars, supporters of the door
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm
1b1a) to be carried by a nurse
1b1b) made firm, sure, lasting
1b1c) confirmed, established, sure
1b1d) verified, confirmed
1b1e) reliable, faithful, trusty
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in
1c1a) stand firm
1c1b) trust, believe
Part of Speech: verb
4] Complete Word Study Dictionary:
H543
ึธืึตืื
โaฬmeฬn: An adverb meaning verily or truly. The word is used more often as the declaration may it be so. It comes from a root meaning to confirm; to support; to be faithful. The major idea behind this word is constancy and reliability. It is used as a declaration to acknowledge affirmation of a statement (1Ki_1:36); acceptance of a curse (Neh_5:13); affirmation of a prophecy (Jer_28:6). It is also used in response to worship and praise (1Ch_16:36; Neh_8:6). The English word amen comes from this word and means, “I agree; may it be so.” >>
______________
In other words, we see here a case of a given context and root within a language frame, dismissed on the similarity of sound.
Well, ROK needs to know that GIFT in English is what we expect to find under the Christmas tree, but in German, it means POISON.
Similarity of sound does not carry over to similarity of meaning.
But, the error is not just an innocent mistake, it is part of a clear campaign to distort our understanding of the hebraic roots of the Christian faith, substituting twisted myths and rhetoric that cannot stand serious scrutiny.
G’day
D
PS: As for assuming and asserting that songs cannot be sung fromthe4 heart, with deep peronal meaning, ROK is blatantly wrong. Just ask any musician. And in the case of THAT hymn, it is a grand one that many, many know and sing from the heart precisely because it is so expressive of the experience of the Christian — and in this case in the Caribbean “Long my imprisoned spirit lay . . . ” is where the song takes off to the heavens. Indeed, that is how I first learned it as the congregation at Carrington’s Wesleyan Holiness sang their hearts out on it, as lived out experience. Experience that may not be as intense and powerful as Pascal’s on Nov 23, 1654 — notice ROK has tippy toed around that one! — but all fully real nonetheless.
PPS: And now we see where ROK looks to for “genuine” spiritual experience: the occult. ROK, from having had to address it live and direct, the occultic spirituality is real all right, but not all that is real is either truthful or good — and observe how carefully I have made sure to warrant he Christian experience on that which shows the truth, power and goodness fo God. And so you will be well advised to consult with a good pastor who knows what he is doing about the spiritual bondages that come to those who play with the matches supplied by the occult. (BTW, also, last time I had to address real-live occult spirituality, it was the demons who were on the run when the Name, Cross and Blood of the risen exalted Christ were called into the reckoning. It has ever been so since the occultic magicians Jannes and Jambres could not stand up to God and his prophet in Egypt, even as the demons behind the empty idols of Egypt were judged and shown utterly powerless in the face of I AM THAT I AM!)
ROK
I admit I never looked at the Koran in any depth and cannot speak to the following question but googling the three words, similarities Bible Koran, suggests that there is an ongoing debate on similarities that exist between the Koran and the Bible.
I see you have in your examination of Christianity you have addressed ancient Egyptian beliefs and Buddhists beliefs in this thread.
I wondered if you have looked at Islam, another major world belief as well.
If so, do you find similarities in the Bible and Koran?
Be Thankful For What You Got (*)
(*)=Winston Curtis
Onlookers:
I think I should add this, as it speaks of the times we have lived in since Pentecost:
Acts 2
The Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost
1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
13Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.[b]”
Peter Addresses the Crowd
14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17″ ‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'[c]22″Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
” ‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'[e]29″Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[f] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.” ‘[g]36″Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far offโfor all whom the Lord our God will call.”
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
And later, when the lame cripple was healed:
Ac 3:19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for youโeven Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.
Onlookers, we must know that his is a time when there are seasons of refreshing when God pours out his Spirit in power, in lesser or greater times. Why, just Sunday last I saw a minor outpouring at church as a sister sang an anointed song.
Indeed, there are times and places where the simple reading of the scriptures becomes charged with the presence and power of God to save, heal, deliver and liberate and transform!
There are times and places where the very atmosphere of a region becomes charged with the manifest presence of God and a great awakening begins.
there are even people who have been surrounded by such a charged cloud that just sitting there on a train and reading the newspaper, men all around are struck tot he quick and driven to repentance and blessed transformation.
So, the ultimate answer to the sort of fleshly, worldly or even demonic mockery that Peter predicted, is the impact of the real thing,/a>.
May God even now pour out His Spirit all across our region, and especially in Barbados.
May ROK and co see the manifest power of God to come to their prison and from his all-seeing, loving eye diffuse a quickening resurrection-powered ray that they may awaken, the dungeon flaming with heavenly light!
May their chains fall off and their hearts burst free, so they may rise, go forth and follow Him who — by the power of the cross and the resurrection and the outpoured Spirit and the Name that is above all names — is Lord and able to save heal and liberate, even them.
All this:
In Jesus’ mighty name above all names, and so by his authority,
AMEN
D
Keep That Light (*)
(*)=Slim Smith
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.