b-greek-digest V1 #527

b-greek-digest           Thursday, 29 December 1994     Volume 01 : Number 527

In this issue:

        Re: Virgin or Young Woman
        Re: son of man


From: "Micheal C. Flessas" <mflessas@omnifest.uwm.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 13:24:42 -0600
Subject: Unsubscribe 



From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 94 11:32:46 PST
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman

   Speaking as a Bible-believing person, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree
with you.  I think the text of Isaiah says that Isaiah toldf Ahaz of a sign
that Ahaz would see.  I cannot see Isaiah 7 as having only a forward 
reference.  It must refer to the current situation.  That Matthew, in some
way, sees it as having an application to Jesus, and that being a valid
application, I would agree with.  Do not, however, assert that because one
"believes" in the Bible (asnd I'd much rather say the truths taught in the
Bible, putting my faith in God, not in the Bible per se), one must 
ignore the context of passages in the Tanach.  Howeverr a NT writer
uses a text, as a Bible-believing person, I still, always,k want to go
back to the original text and ask what it meant for its original hearers.
The alternative, it seems to me, is that several passages in the Hebrew 
text are little more than jibberish since they mean nothing for their
original audiences.I doubt that's the position you are taking, but it makes
it sound like it, and if so, please don't include me in your argument.
I believe firmly in inspiration, but I also believe in exegesis of passages
in their original context.  While I accept matthew's application, that
 surely doesn't mean that I have to ignore the original context, especially
when it does not _clearly_ point forward to the Messiah.  

Best Wishes,

Ken Litwak


From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 16:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: son of man

On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

> hopelessly divergent.  For example, when Jesus tells the rich young ruler
> there is no one goood but God, after the young man has called Jesus good,
> Jesus MUST be doing either one of two things:  1) denying his own goodness
> (which would be out of keeping with what else I think we can glean of his
> self-undestanding);  or 2) he is telling the young man that He is God.  I
> see no way around these two choices, unless of course you arbitrarily 
> throw out the pericope.  

In my response to your message, I for some reason assumed you were 
referring to this story in Matthew, whereas now that I have more time, I 
see you were referring to Mark or Luke.  Sorry.

>    In other texts, I think you fail to see that making a distinction
> between God the Father and Jesus does NOT require a distinction between
> their natures.  That's your interpretation.  I'm not reading back
> Nicea into the text, I hope.

If things other than God can have his nature, then that would make sense, 
but it would require that the other thing not have all of, and the exact 
same, nature, wouldn't it?  If you are trying to avoid a Nicene 
paradoxical reading, then I am not understanding your point.  If you are 
using nature in the sense of sets of characteristics (of divinity/deity) 
then this is my understanding of divine in many places, i.e. "godlike."

  What I am doing is trying to come to grips
> with the fact that the NT writers use language of Jesus that, to my mind,
> demarcate him as divine in the sense I'm using it, without yet having
> tried to come to terms themselves with a doctrinal formulation for that
> reality.  One such passage is 1 TIm 3:16.  Even apart from the 
> textual question, it seems evident to me, at least, that when Paul says
> the "mystery of godliness is great", he is certainly NOT talking about
> piety.  He has just been talking about what pertains to God.  So he is
> saying the musterion of godliness, i.e., what has been revealed about
> God is awesome:  He appeared in a body.... Again, back to 2 Peter,

I would disagree: "godliness" in English translations here is misleading: 
it refers to humans with godlike characteristics, e.g. the righteousness 
that usually passes for humn "piety."  This is the ordinary sense of 
_eusebeia_ and the context of 1 Tim. 3:16 makes it abundantly clear: v. 
15 "pOs dei en oikOi theou anastrephesthai", "how to behave in God's 
household."  It would seem to me that the "mustErion" in v. 16 is Jesus's 
piety, e.g. "edikiaiOthE en pneumati", "he was found righteous in/by 
[his/the?] spirit."

"Eusebeia" is reverence by a human being toward a divinity: I don't know 
of any usage along the lines you suggest.

Greg Jordan


End of b-greek-digest V1 #527


To unsubscribe from this list write


with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at


You can send mail to the entire list via the address: