Today, much of the Christian religion is built upon the idea of “believing” the Bible as the Word of God. Indeed, the word “faith” has come to be synonymous with the idea of religion. However, nothing in the Bible can support this idea of “believing” and “faith” because these words did not have the same meaning when Jesus taught.
Hi Terry., thanks for the suggestions. I try to avoid interpretation and stick to translation but I can point out where changes in the original meaning are used to reinforce certain doctrines. However, I cannot say which doctrines are true and which are false. I have a personal belief built upon simply trusting the words of Jesus, but I do not write to promote my own view other than the idea that translation should be accurate.
One thing Jesus lacked, there may be others, but one thing lacking was “hope”. That is to say, the record we have of his vocabulary lacks elpis - curious to me. Words can be slippery things. Hope (elpis) pops up over 50 times in the rest of the new testament, but is not to be found in the gospel writings or the first chapter of Acts. Did Jesus only have pistis apart from elpis.
If mature trust (pistis), as mature confidence, lacks all uncertainty, then hope is not to be found or even needed. There is immature trust/confidence which Jesus related to those with “little faith”, but Jesus would have none of this under-developed “trust”.
Hope might suggest that there are other options available - possibilities. Perhaps in Luke 22:42 Jesus is just brushing next to a trust, for the first time, that is on the borderline of complete and mature trust. Perhaps he was having a "hope" experience. Regardless, we are not told to have “hope”, at least not by Jesus.
"Specific verses where meaning is lost in translation" would be of interest to me.
Regarding this article, could you provide some specific comments Jesus made where your explanation of these words actually improves our understanding of what he said?
Put another way, how does the common understanding of those comments mislead us?
"Faith," and "Believing," versus "Trust"
Hi Terry., thanks for the suggestions. I try to avoid interpretation and stick to translation but I can point out where changes in the original meaning are used to reinforce certain doctrines. However, I cannot say which doctrines are true and which are false. I have a personal belief built upon simply trusting the words of Jesus, but I do not write to promote my own view other than the idea that translation should be accurate.
One thing Jesus lacked, there may be others, but one thing lacking was “hope”. That is to say, the record we have of his vocabulary lacks elpis - curious to me. Words can be slippery things. Hope (elpis) pops up over 50 times in the rest of the new testament, but is not to be found in the gospel writings or the first chapter of Acts. Did Jesus only have pistis apart from elpis.
If mature trust (pistis), as mature confidence, lacks all uncertainty, then hope is not to be found or even needed. There is immature trust/confidence which Jesus related to those with “little faith”, but Jesus would have none of this under-developed “trust”.
Hope might suggest that there are other options available - possibilities. Perhaps in Luke 22:42 Jesus is just brushing next to a trust, for the first time, that is on the borderline of complete and mature trust. Perhaps he was having a "hope" experience. Regardless, we are not told to have “hope”, at least not by Jesus.
"Specific verses where meaning is lost in translation" would be of interest to me.
Regarding this article, could you provide some specific comments Jesus made where your explanation of these words actually improves our understanding of what he said?
Put another way, how does the common understanding of those comments mislead us?