Practically Perfect or Perfect Position?

[JaneFrances]

Surely, you see my dilemma.

But perhaps, if history is any indication, you may need further explanation. . .

Notice, each of the English translations I have provided–no doubt, one could offer more–differs from another. Thus, I am confronted with a problem. I don’t know any of the publishers or any of the editors, translators, scholars, etc. involved in producing these versions of the Bible, so which do I choose?

You have done well to appeal to St. John for direction in testing spirits, but how does one do this pertaining to a translation? The Holy Spirit inspires all Scripture, so how do I know which translation is worthy?

This is precisely why I choose, not being a Greek scholar myself, to turn to a lexicon of the original language for more information.

I understand your hesitance to engage in linguistic analysis especially in a language you do not know. So how does one resolve this issue?

To begin, according to common usage, one would most certainly understand the command “Be perfect” as in instruction indicating an immediate response. This falls into the same category as “Be quiet.” Or according to the English Biblical usage “Be fruitful and muliply.”

Now, as one probes further and considers academic usage, one could make an argument, as you have (here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144393&page=3 post #53), that “Be perfect,” in English, is not grammatically perfect. So, while the common usage has one understanding, the English grammar offers another possibility.

So, one is faced with a number of choices. One of these choices, one especially sensible for someone seeking accuracy and full understanding, would certainly be to consider the language derivation of “Be perfect.” This is precisely why I thought you would be interested to know the Greek root.

If you have no interest in exploring the truth into language derivation, I would ask you to please provide evidence that your chosen English translation is the perfect product.

What i think you are saying, then, is that the proper understanding of our Lord’s words should be:
“You are to be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

This is exactly what I am saying.

I should next ask, then, does this understanding of our Savior’s words mean the same as this?
“Become perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

This is not my understanding of the full context of the Scripture.
Please see my post here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144393&page=3 #65.

In it, I wrote:

To use the verb “become,” in the English, requires a future tense and does not allow any other. The verb “be”, or as you have pointed out the infinitive “to be”, is much more hospitable to other senses, without ignoring or limiting the present and future tenses.

Thus, as Christ’s injuction surely is meant for all human kind, one would rightly conclude that we are “to be perfect.” This is the general sense in context. How it applies to each individual is a matter of active grace.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
What i think you are saying, then, is that the proper understanding of our Lord’s words should be:
“You are to be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
This is exactly what I am saying.
…

Jane:

I must admit that the New American Standard Bible concurs with your translation of the passage. For, the NASB translates Matthew 5:48 this way:

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” It’s ironic that you would say this translation is more accurate than the sanctioned Roman Catholic translation, the New American Bible, which translates the words of the God who loves you as He loves me this way:

"Be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."The NASB, which you chose, is the Bible of choice for Reformed theologians, such as Calvinists. No matter, for this actually shows character on your part to choose the favorite Bible of those who are opposed to Catholicism to make your point. A hostile witness in a court room is often more credible than a friendly one, so you make a good point.

(As you recall, i do not intentionally use sarcasm, i am saying is sincerely think you have provided good evidence.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Then, i understand you Jane to say that Jesus is speaking of remaining in a state of perfect sinlessness, but not in the present. That is, He was not saying to those to whom He gave the sermon on the hill overlooking the beautiful lake of Galilee that they were, in fact, perfect. Rather, He was saying that those listening to Him would one day be (or remain in) a state of sinless perfection. Am i understanding you perfectly?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Guano:

I believe God has a sense of humor, for He had Jane quote from a Protestant Bible to make her point and me quote from a Catholic Bible to ask whether her point is true!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Sure, but which English? Surely, you see my dilemma.

Well, Jane, this is a fine mess you have gotten me into! (I’m doing my best at trying to be sarcastic, here, for how can learning the truth about something be a mess?)

What i thought to be as transparent as fine crystal is now clear as mud! No sarcasm intended, because i now share your dilemma. On the one hand, there is the Catholic translation:

"Be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."On the other hand, there is the Protestant translation:

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

We are both facing an ambiguity, for two different translations render the meaning of Christ’s words in different ways. Given the fact that you and i do not know enough Greek to settle the matter, how do we know which rendering has the true words of Jesus?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What i have been taught to do in these circumstances is to appeal to Scripture to interpret Scripture. When one passage is found to be ambiguous, i have been told, find another that is not ambiguous that teaches the same truth. Do you think this is the best way to show me your way is the Way, Jane?

 

[JaneFrances]

Forgive my tardy response. . .family and life have been busy.

Jane:

I must admit that the New American Standard Bible concurs with your translation of the passage. For, the NASB translates Matthew 5:48 this way:

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” It’s ironic that you would say this translation is more accurate than the sanctioned Roman Catholic translation, the New American Bible, which translates the words of the God who loves you as He loves me this way:

"Be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."The NASB, which you chose, is the Bible of choice for Reformed theologians, such as Calvinists. No matter, for this actually shows character on your part to choose the favorite Bible of those who are opposed to Catholicism to make your point. A hostile witness in a court room is often more credible than a friendly one, so you make a good point.

You give me too much credit. I simply cut and pasted the Scripture from Biblegateway or Blue Letter, neither of which is too terribly interested in Catholic translations. I had no interest beyond showing you the varied wording of one passage.

Then, i understand you Jane to say that Jesus is speaking of remaining in a state of perfect sinlessness, but not in the present. That is, He was not saying to those to whom He gave the sermon on the hill overlooking the beautiful lake of Galilee that they were, in fact, perfect. Rather, He was saying that those listening to Him would one day be (or remain in) a state of sinless perfection. Am i understanding you perfectly?

No, you are not. To be honest, I am losing sight of the purpose of this discussion. I must wonder if you are reading my posts at all.

While I have not responded, I have read your Socratic method thread and would like to echo the sentiments which you may or may not have picked up on. The Socratic method is a good academic and philosophical tool, but it is not working in this forum for you. It is hard to know if it is the method or the practitioner which is at fault here—perhaps a bit of both. Most people I have encountered on this thread are good people only seeking honest discussion, not to be pawns in a set-up exposition.

Your constant refrains of naivety, ignorance, and inferiority seem feigned and disingenuous. This may impede further discussion.

Well, Jane, this is a fine mess you have gotten me into! (I’m doing my best at trying to be sarcastic, here, for how can learning the truth about something be a mess?)

What i thought to be as transparent as fine crystal is now clear as mud! No sarcasm intended, because i now share your dilemma. On the one hand, there is the Catholic translation:
“Be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
On the other hand, there is the Protestant translation:
“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
We are both facing an ambiguity, for two different translations render the meaning of Christ’s words in different ways. Given the fact that you and i do not know enough Greek to settle the matter, how do we know which rendering has the true words of Jesus?

I see no ambiguity in the passages quoted above. I understand that you do. I do not understand how, therefore, I can not help you. Against my better judgment, out of some measure of Christian charity, I agreed to your pedagogical construct only to find that your concern with style and agenda truncates even the simplest dialogue.
Even if you reject the Greek lexicon, most scholars find it reliable enough to settle the matter. In common Biblical English usage, “Be perfect” and “You are to be perfect” are interchangeable regarding the passage in question and the internal theology. There is no real discrepancy in meaning.

What i have been taught to do in these circumstances is to appeal to Scripture to interpret Scripture. When one passage is found to be ambiguous, i have been told, find another that is not ambiguous that teaches the same truth.

Comparing Scripture to Scripture as its own interpreter is a common strategy, I understand, in certain circles. To begin, I would immediately look to the context of the passage.

Do you think this is the best way to show me your way is the Way, Jane?

I am not convinced that any way will penetrate your method. If you are interested in continuing this dialogue, I respectfully ask that you adopt a different approach.

 

[cpayne]

Socrates asked questions in order to arrive at more accurate formulations of truth. The Sophists asked questions in order to demonstrate that no accurate formulations of truth could be given. Which is going on here? Hasn’t the OP been answered adequately several times on this thread?

 

[mikeledes]

Soc comes across, at least to me, as a person genuinely seeking the truth. I don’t believe he is here to ram down his own personal agenda down our throats. His method may a bit confusing , but I believe he’s well-intentioned. I wish I clearly knew what he believed.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JaneFrances]

Soc comes across, at least to me, as a person genuinely seeking the truth. I don’t believe he is here to ram down his own personal agenda down our throats. His method may a bit confusing , but I believe he’s well-intentioned.

Hey Mike, I had the same first impressions of Socrates4Jesus which is precisely why I agreed to attempt to answer his questions. My comment regarding style and agenda refers to his insistence upon a forced Socratic method which is not proving profitable or even communicative in this forum. I am now confused, as well.

I wish I clearly knew what he believed.

Me too.

 

[Contarini]

We are both facing an ambiguity, for two different translations render the meaning of Christ’s words in different ways. Given the fact that you and i do not know enough Greek to settle the matter, how do we know which rendering has the true words of Jesus?

You could always listen to someone who does know Greek. But you don’t want to do that, because it would squelch your tendentious fundamentalist argument.

I have said before and I say it again–all your endless posts on this would be wasted breath if you paid any attention to the grammar of the original. I explained this grammar to you and you ignored me. You have yet to provide any evidence that any of the translators who use “be” think it means what you think it means. You initially said that no translation supported my interpretation, even though as it turned out the NASB did. Can you see why I have trouble taking your seeker-of-the-truth stance very seriously?

Edwin

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates asked questions in order to arrive at more accurate formulations of truth. The Sophists asked questions in order to demonstrate that no accurate formulations of truth could be given. Which is going on here? Hasn’t the OP been answered adequately several times on this thread?

My goal is the former. Perhaps others disagree? How do you propose we should determine what my true motives are? If my motives were found to be the former (as i am certain they are) should that make a difference in how Jane and others answer my questions?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc comes across, at least to me, as a person genuinely seeking the truth. I don’t believe he is here to ram down his own personal agenda down our throats. His method may a bit confusing , but I believe he’s well-intentioned. I wish I clearly knew what he believed.

God Bless,
Michael

Thank you, Mike, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You’re a good one, like the angel for whom you are named. I don’t care what others might say about you!



You are correct in saying i’m genuinely seeking truth. Now, you would likely say the Roman Catholic way to heaven is the truth, Protestants tell me differently, i’m standing between the two trying to figure out who is correct.

I suppose i would ask you the same question i asked Cpayne a moment ago. Do you think there is any way to demonstrate what you believe about my motives is true? Perhaps a better question to ask you and others is this: Is there anything i could say that would convince others that i’m a genuine philosopher and not a partisan?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You could always listen to someone who does know Greek. But you don’t want to do that, because it would squelch your tendentious fundamentalist argument.

I have said before and I say it again–all your endless posts on this would be wasted breath if you paid any attention to the grammar of the original. I explained this grammar to you and you ignored me. You have yet to provide any evidence that any of the translators who use “be” think it means what you think it means. You initially said that no translation supported my interpretation, even though as it turned out the NASB did. Can you see why I have trouble taking your seeker-of-the-truth stance very seriously?

Edwin

It was not a lack of respect, it was a lack of trust, Edwin. Perhaps if i knew you better, i should trust you more. If i knew you to be an honest person who knew about what he was talking, you might be able to say, as the uncle in C.S. Lewis’ book said to the children who did not believe their sister Lucy found another world on the other side of the wardrobe: “If she is not mad, and not the sort who is easily deceived, and has never lied to you before, why would you not believe her now?”

As i replied, St. John wrote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

(1 John 4:1)

I do not know Greek grammar and extremely few Greek words. How can i test what i do not understand?

One thing that might help me gain confidence in your opinion would be if you are a published author regarding Greek grammar. Have you written any scholarly journals or textbooks on the subject that i can obtain through a local university or public library?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… To be honest, I am losing sight of the purpose of this discussion. I must wonder if you are reading my posts at all. …

The purpose of the discussion is still the same, it was written in my introductory post (#1):

I’m visiting this form looking for the truth, and i want to thank everyone who has been so kind to answer all my questions. In one discussion thread i was trying to find out what role the good things i do have in my getting to heaven. Are the good things i do out of love for Jesus the reason He gives me eternal life or the result of His already giving me eternal life?
One thoughtful person said that the good things i do are certainly a reason (not a result), for Jesus said: *

​

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”*
(Matthew 5:48)
So, i asked in another discussion thread how i might be perfect. The answers many helpful people gave me talked about all the good things i should do that would help me become perfect. …

*Then one helpful person suggested that this passage had the answer: **Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. *
(Hebrews 10:11-13)
*He did not, however, go so far as to explain why this section of the Bible explains how i can be perfect. *

Therefore, i’m asking anyone who has an idea what Hebrews, chapter 10 means to try to explain it to me. I have an idea, but i don’t want to hold it up like some kind of sword and challenge everyone to defeat it. I want to hear what others have to say and seriously consider whether what they say is true.

Please tell me, what do you think it is that the author of Hebrews believes makes us as perfect as God?

​

I do not see where anyone has tried to answer my question. That question is, of course, “Please tell me, what do you think it is that the author of Hebrews believes makes us as perfect as God?”

 

[cpayne]

My goal is the former. Perhaps others disagree? How do you propose we should determine what my true motives are? If my motives were found to be the former (as i am certain they are) should that make a difference in how Jane and others answer my questions?

Your motives are between you and the Lord. I stick with my final point: The OP has been answered adequately. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find,” not “Seek and you’ll come up with a seemingless endless series of questions that ignore attempted answers.” (I’m honestly not trying to be harsh; I think it just comes naturally, but I’m working on it.) Bye-bye.

 

[JaneFrances]

Please tell me, what do you think it is that the author of Hebrews believes makes us as perfect as God?

The author of Hebrews believes it is God who perfects.

You can not escape the essential Christian doctrine of perfection through obedience and sanctification by appealing to Hebrews.

Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered, and when perfected, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, designated by God as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 5:8-10

 

[guanophore]

I suppose i would ask you the same question i asked Cpayne a moment ago. Do you think there is any way to demonstrate what you believe about my motives is true? Perhaps a better question to ask you and others is this: Is there anything i could say that would convince others that i’m a genuine philosopher and not a partisan?

I do not think you are a partisan either, but I don’t think your philosophy will get you to heaven, either. Both protestants and Catholics teach that one must “believe” in order to be saved. This is done from the heart, not the mind.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Please tell me, what do you think it is that the author of Hebrews believes makes us as perfect as God?

[/INDENT]I do not see where anyone has tried to answer my question. That question is, of course, “Please tell me, what do you think it is that the author of Hebrews believes makes us as perfect as God?”

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
(Hebrews 10:11-13)

"11 And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, 13 From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said:

16 And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: 17 And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. 18 Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; 20 A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,

**18 “There is no more an oblation for sin”… Where there is a full remission of sins, as in baptism, there is no more occasion for a sin offering to be made for such sins already remitted; and as for sins committed afterwards, they can only be remitted in virtue of the one oblation of Christ’s death. "
DR.

"10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by his passion.

**10 “To perfect the author”… By suffering, Christ was to enter into his glory, Luke 24. 26, which the apostle here calls being made perfect.

11 For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: 12 I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise thee. 13 And again: I will put my trust in him. And again: Behold I and my children, whom God hath given me. 14 Therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same: that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil: 15 And might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude.
"
DR.

 

[Contarini]

It was not a lack of respect, it was a lack of trust, Edwin. Perhaps if i knew you better, i should trust you more. If i knew you to be an honest person who knew about what he was talking, you might be able to say, as the uncle in C.S. Lewis’ book said to the children who did not believe their sister Lucy found another world on the other side of the wardrobe: “If she is not mad, and not the sort who is easily deceived, and has never lied to you before, why would you not believe her now?”

As i replied, St. John wrote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.(1 John 4:1)
I do not know Greek grammar and extremely few Greek words. How can i test what i do not understand?

One thing that might help me gain confidence in your opinion would be if you are a published author regarding Greek grammar. Have you written any scholarly journals or textbooks on the subject that i can obtain through a local university or public library?

Oh don’t be ridiculous. You could go to the nearest theological library and consult a few commentaries by people who know what they are talking about. You don’t have to trust me. You have absolutely no credibility at this point–you are interested in nothing but playing silly games and wasting everyone’s time.

FWIW, I am an assistant professor of Bible and Religion at Huntington University, and am currently teaching GR421, “Exegetical Greek,” at that institution. However, I do not profess to be an expert in Greek grammar (the professor who usually teaches it is on sabbatical and I’m filling in). You can ascertain that I’m telling you the truth by consulting any commentary based on the Greek text. If you won’t do that, then you obviously don’t care one iota for the truth.

Edwin