R
ratio1
Guest
Just happen to be feast of Corpus Christi.
St Thomas Aquinas was asked to compose chants for this feast.
In Lauda Sion:
In figuris praesignator, cum Isaac immolatur, agnus paschae deputator, datur manna patribus.
- Status
St Thomas Aquinas was asked to compose chants for this feast.
In Lauda Sion:
In figuris praesignator, cum Isaac immolatur, agnus paschae deputator, datur manna patribus.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
It was to demonstrate his faith to God, which St. Paul says his faith was credited to him by righteousness. It was also to demonstrate his faith outwardly to the two men who went with him, which is why St. James references the same event when he wrote “faith without works is dead.” Faith is invisible. And unlike God who knows the thoughts of all men, people can only “see” your faith BY your works (St. James 2:18).
G
Gorgias
Guest
You speak about “adding to the text”, but has it occurred to you that you’re doing the same thing? After all, you’re reading “now I know, since…” and you’re presuming that it means “I didn’t know before this time.” How do you reach that conclusion?
After all, it’s not just a simple “now I know,” as if God didn’t know previously. Instead, it asserts that the action itself demonstrates a fact that can be known by virtue of the action. This doesn’t imply that God was not in possession of the knowledge prior to the action.
By virtue of the fact that elsewhere in Scripture, we learn that God knows all things. If we were to accept your exegesis, this would mean that there’s a serious contradiction in Scripture. And, we know that this is not the case. Therefore, we reject your exegesis.
How about “until now, I did not know.” That would prove your assertion. However, in the absence of any such thing, your assertion that “now I know, since…” actually means “before now, I did not know” simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Last edited:
D
Dougbro1
Guest
How did he fail? He followed all God’s instructions.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Because this lesson was needed not only by Abraham but by all of us.
D
Dougbro1
Guest
True, but while a lot of us failed, some still succeeded, like Abraham. It’s not his fault that not everyone succeeded.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I’m not being a smart aleck. I’m showing respect to language. What you have to understand is the more people play fast and loose with the language of passages that cause problems to Christianity, the less believable those same people are when they go on about passages which trumpet Christianity. Ignorance means knwledge. Black means white. Some means all. It’s downright Orwellian what many apologists do in a desperate attempt to salvage the concept of a cohesive scripture.
It’s interesting to me that when Biblical passages conflict (as they are sometimes wont to do) that at no point is it considered that maybe one or both of the passages are wrong. The believer doesn’t have that option. We then go to what I call the three Rs of apologetics: Retreat, Redefine, and Rationalize. Here we see the second, redefine. We then play this game where we say both passages are completely true, even though one of them means the opposite of its plain reading.
That wasn’t the question I asked. I asked if it were his intention to make it know that by Abraham’s act he at that point knew that Abraham loved him. The answer is he would have used the exact same words. So by this apologetic a phrase can mean one thing as well as its opposite. Imagine if the words to say, “It is safe to enter” were the same as the words to say, “It is dangerous to enter.”
Last edited:
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I am assuming since you are citing this article that you have read it. Does the actual article give prior examples of using “Now I know” as meaning “I have made known”? Does it give reasoning (besides the desires of Christians), a language-based reasoning not to interpret “Now I know” as I did not know before but know now? Since I’m assuming you’ve read the actual article, which is in German, is there anything with the German descriptions that we should be aware of?
I’ll repeat what I said to Wesrock. It’s interesting to me that when Biblical passages conflict (as they are sometimes wont to do) that at no point is it considered that maybe one or both of the passages are wrong. You brought up a few others. Now some of these it can reasonably said would be asked by someone who already knows the answer to the question, and is asking to see if the responder will respond truthfully. But we don’t get that with the “Now I know” quote. There is no reason for God to state that he had just gained knowledge if he hadn’t just gained knowledge.
In the summary of the article ATraveller linked to the author described that phrase as a problem for believers, and I think that’s a good term. Believers have passages saying God is all-knowing and this passage which shows succinctly that he is not. It’s a problem that has to be tackled, and a solution has to be found by hook or crook. There is no rigor in it, just a question of how much twisting of language can be gotten away
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
He wanted to get technical about it.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I reached that conclusion by knowing basic language skills. It’s the kind of conclusion that anyone not trying to fabricate a narrative that differs 180 degrees from the words themselves would also conclude.
“I just solved the formula.”
“Perhaps you always knew the formula.”
“No I solved it. Just now.”
“I can’t make that conclusion. Who’s to say that solving the formula says anything about not having already solved it?”
The phrase literally does mean that God lacked knowledge prior to now. The word now wouldn’t be used at all and neither would the “since” portion since they both tell the reader/listener that there is a dilenation between a time of knowing and a time of not knowing and what the cause was that separated the two.
So I can’t use this passage to show an inconsistency in Scripture, becuase doing so would show an inconsistency in Scripture, and you declare by fiat that there is no inconsistency in Scripture. Imagine if we can do that for anything: “You can’t show that our new medicine can cause people to grow a third eyeball, because that would mean there is a problem with our medicine, and we know that there are no problems with our medicine.”
Both phrases mean EXACTLY the same thing. Each imparts that there is a change in knowing and it’s occurring now. “Now I know” emphasizes that the speaker knows from now to the future. “Until now, I did not know” emphasizes that the speaker did not know between the past and now.
Last edited:
C
chercheur
Guest
I don’t know the answer to the original question, but as for “now I know”, I see it as God just saying basically that Abraham shows his faith by his actions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that God anthropomorphizes (maybe that’s not the correct term here) in his revelation to humanity. That’s my take on it anyway.
Back to the topic, I think it goes without saying that in Christianity external actions are important, because clearly the physical world and this life are significant in God’s plan for us. Adding to this, Abraham’s going through with his faith in the form of an external action with real weight and in real circumstances perhaps was to have a profound impact on him personally. I think God was showing Abraham something about himself, or helping him to put his faith into practice in a way that would affect him and his faith.
Back to the topic, I think it goes without saying that in Christianity external actions are important, because clearly the physical world and this life are significant in God’s plan for us. Adding to this, Abraham’s going through with his faith in the form of an external action with real weight and in real circumstances perhaps was to have a profound impact on him personally. I think God was showing Abraham something about himself, or helping him to put his faith into practice in a way that would affect him and his faith.
Last edited:
I
Isearch
Guest
But the passages from Revelation you have just quoted speak solely about the book of Revelation. The passages from Deuteronomy and Proverbs you have quoted merely warn about falsely claiming some human laws to be commanded directly by God. Additionally, passages from both Deuteronomy and proverbs were speaking against adding to the laws and commandments from God, not exactly to the passages themselves (so much for “respecting the language”). Physician, in this case, heal thyself.
Also note that the passage you have quoted from the book of Proverbs is quite similar to how we require others to “not put words into our mouths.”
And you have just accused them of being dishonest.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
It is NOT a lack of knowledge on the part of G-d. G-d speaks to Abraham by entering into the temporal state of human beings, and in such a state, testing occurs, knowledge based on testing occurs, and consequences of that knowledge based on testing occur. You might as well make the argument that the test itself indicates that G-d does not know the results, but He does although He gives Abraham the free will to choose to obey or disobey. The testing, the knowledge admitted by G-d as a result of the testing, and the positive consequences of that result all confirm that G-d has entered into the temporal dimension of human beings such as Abraham.
A
ATraveller
Guest
It’s not open source. Regardless, the summary is sufficient. Why? Because you are trying to use English rather than the ancient language involved when in fact that’s not the best way of analyzing a text in a language that’s quite different from ours. Scholars know this. That was the point of that link.
Previously, you dismissed commentary on this despite the fact they’re basing it on the complication provided by ancient Hebrew. Complicating that is who’s speaking.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
This is an alternative Jewish interpretation. In other words, Abraham should have protested G-d’s command; he should have also informed his wife, Sarah, regarding what he was commanded to do to HER son as well as his own. The moral of this event is really, according to the minority viewpoint, that blind obedience toward others, and even to G-d Himself, is not the best thing, and the rewards of such obedience do not justify the act itself.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
To sacrifice one’s own beloved son is indeed a SUPREME test.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Maybe Abraham needed to understand what the Father was going to do.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Amen to that, my friend, amen to that.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Good point here.
- Status