Skocz do zawartości


Zdjęcie

Ps 18:35


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 mirek

mirek

    Elita forum (> 1000)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3184 Postów

Napisano 2009-05-11, godz. 13:31

Czy ktos moglby przetlumaczyc ten werset, bezposrednio z greki lub hebrajskiego ?

W tekście greckiej Septuaginty znajduje się w tym miejscu słowo PAIDEIA:

Ps 18:36 Bg „Dałeś mi też tarcz zbawienia twego, a prawica twoja podpierała mię, i dobrotliwość twoja uwielmożyła mię.”

Ps 18:36 BT „Dajesz mi tarczę Twą dla ocalenia, i wspiera mnie Twoja prawica, a Twoja troskliwość czyni mnie wielkim.”

Ps 18:36 Bw „Dajesz mi tarczę zbawienia swego I prawica twoja wspiera mnie, A łaskawość twoja czyni mnie wielkim.”

Ps 18:36 Bp „Dałeś mi tarczę swego wybawienia, prawica Twoja podtrzymywała mnie, Twoja piecza mnie umocniła.”


Ps 18:35 NS „I dasz mi swą tarczę wybawienia, i wesprze mnie twa prawica, a pokora twoja uczyni mnie wielkim.”

Ps 18:35 LXX „(17:36) και εδωκας μοι υπερασπισμον σωτηριας μου και η δεξια σου αντελαβετο μου και η παιδεια σου ανωρθωσεν με εις τελος και η παιδεια σου αυτη με διδαξει ”

Tekst greckiej Septuaginty dosłownie ma w tym miejscu sformułowanie:

twoje kształcenie prostuje mnie do końca a twa dyscyplina uczy mnie

Jak już zostało wyżej wspomniane w miejscu pogrubionym występuje greckie słowo PAIDEIA. Oto jego definicja za leksykonem Thayer:

PAIDEIA - wychowywanie (dzieci), ćwiczenie, kształcenie; karcenie, karanie
Dołączona grafika

Natomiast słowo pokora, to inne wyrazy greckie:

TAPEINOPHROSYNE - pokora, skromność, uniżoność
Dołączona grafika


TAPEINOSIS - upokorzenie, poniżenie; pokora, uniżenie się, niskość
Dołączona grafika
On zaś rzekł: Baczcie, by nie dać się zmylić. Wielu bowiem przyjdzie w imieniu moim, mówiąc: Ja jestem, i: Czas się przybliżył. Nie idźcie za nimi!" (Łk 21:8, BW)

#22 agent terenowy:)

agent terenowy:)

    Forumowicz (51-500)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPip
  • 284 Postów

Napisano 2009-05-11, godz. 18:43

A ja spróbuje to trochę przedefiniować :) "Twoja pokora czyni mnie wielkim" może nie koniecznie oznacza to, że Bóg jest pokorny. Zwrot ten można zrozumieć jako "pokora przed Tobą czyni mnie wielkim." Czyż Bóg nie wywyższa pokornych? Podobnie jak bojaźń Boża oznacza bojaźń czy lęk przed Bogiem. Można to też zrozumieć jako proroctwo dotyczące Chrystusa. Bóg staje się ciałem, przyjmuje postać sługi, umiera na krzyżu. Czy w taki sposób pokora Boga nie czyni wierzących wielkimi? To tak jakby się ktoś upierał, że Bogu można przypisać pokorę. ;)
Kto przyjmuje pomazańca jako pomazańca, otrzyma nagrodę pomazańca. (por. Mat 10, 41).

#23 mirek

mirek

    Elita forum (> 1000)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3184 Postów

Napisano 2009-05-12, godz. 07:36

W poprzednim poście podałem definicję terminu PAIDEIA (wychowywanie, kształcenie). Istnieje jeszcze jedno słowo będące synonimem, którego definicję niniejszym przedstawiam za leksykonem Thayer:

NOUTHESIA - przemawianie do rozumu, napominanie, napomnienie, pouczenie
Dołączona grafika

Oto co na temat róznicy między tymi dwoma słowami ma do powiedzenia jeszcze Richard C. Trench w swoim "Słowniku Synonimów Nowego Testamentu" (strony 111-114):

It is worth while to attempt a discrimination between these words, occurring as they do together at Ephes. 6:4, and being often there either not distinguished at all, or distinguished erroneously.

Παιδεια is one among the many words, into which revealed religion has put a deeper meaning than it knew of, till this took possession of it; the new wine by a wondrous process making new even the old vessel into which it was poured. For the Greek, παιδεια was simply ‘education;’ nor, in all the many definitions of it which Plato gives, is there the slightest prophetic anticipation of the new force which it one day should obtain. But the deeper apprehension of those who had learned that “foolishness is bound in the heart” alike “of a child” and of a man, while yet “the rod of correction may drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15, led them, in assuming the word, to bring into it a further thought. They felt and understood that all effectual instruction for the sinful children of men, includes and implies chastening, or, as we are accustomed to say, out of a sense of the same truth, ‘correction.’ There must be επανορθωσις, or ‘rectification’ in it; which last word, occurring but once in the N. T., is there found in closest connexion with παιδεια (2 Tim. 3:16).1

Two definitions of παιδεια—the one by a great heathen philosopher, the other by a great Christian theologian,—may be profitably compared. This is Plato’s (Legg. ii. 659 d: παιδεια μεν εσθ' η παιδων ολκη τε και αγωγη προς τον υπο του νομου λογον ορθον ειρημενον. And this is that of Basil the Great (In Prov. 1): εστιν η παιδεια αγωγη τις ωφελιμος τη ψυχη, επιπονως πολλακις των απο κακιας κηλιδων αυτην εκκαθαιρουσα. For as many as felt and acknowledged all which St. Basil here asserts, παιδεια signified, not simply ‘eruditio,’ but, as Augustine expresses it, who has noticed the changed use of the word (Enarr. in Ps. cxviii. 66), ‘per molestias eruditio.’ And this is quite the predominant use of παιδεια and παιδευειν in the Septuagint, in the Apocrypha, and in the N. T. (Lev. 26:18; Ps. 6:1; Isai. 53:5; Ecclus. 4:17; 22:6, μαστιγες και παιδεια 2 Macc. 6:12; Luke 23:16; Heb. 12:5, 7, 8; Rev. 3:19, and often). The only occasion in the N.T. upon which παιδευειν occurs in the old Greek sense is Acts 7:22. Instead of ‘nurture’ at Ephes. 6:4, which is too weak a word, ‘discipline’ might be substituted with advantage—the laws and ordinances of the Christian household, the transgression of which will induce correction, being indicated by παιδεια there.

Νουθεσια (in Attic Greek νουθετια or νουθετησις, Lobeck, Phrynichus, pp. 513, 520) is more successfully rendered, ‘admonition;’ which, however, as we must not forget, has been defined by Cicero thus: ‘Admonitio est quasi lenior objurgatio.’ And such is νουθεσια here; it is the training by word—by the word of encouragement, when this is sufficient, but also by that of remonstrance, of reproof, of blame, where these may be required; as set over against the training by act and by discipline, which is παιδεια. Pengel, who so seldom misses, has yet missed the exact distinction here, having on εν παιδεια και νουθεσια this note: ‘Harum altera occurrit ruditati; altera oblivioni et levitati. Utraque et sermonem et reliquam disciplinam includit.’ That the distinctive feature of νουεσια is the training by word of mouth is evidenced by such combinations as these: παραινεσεις και νουθεσιαι (Plutarch, De Coh. Irâ, 2); νουθετικοι λογοι (Xenophon, Mem. i. 2. 21); διδαχη και νουθετησις (Plato, Rep. iii. 399 B ); νουθετειν και διδασκειν (Protag. 323 d).

Relatively, then, and by comparison with παιδεια, νουθεσια is the milder term; while yet its association with παιδεια teaches us that this too is a most needful element of Christian education; that the παιδεια without it would be very incomplete; even as, when years advance, and there is no longer a child, but a young man, to deal with, it must give place to, or rather be swallowed up in, the νουθεσια altogether. And yet the νουθεσια itself, where need is, will be earnest and severe enough; it is much more than a feeble Eli-remonstrance: “Nay, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear” (1 Sam. 2:24); indeed, of Eli it is expressly recorded, in respect of those sons, ουκ ενουθετει αυτους) (3:13). Plutarch unites it with μεμψις (Conj. Proec. 13); with ψογος (De Virt. Mor. 12; De Adul. et Am. 17); Philo with σωφρονισμος (Lösner, Obss. ad N.T. e Philone, p. 427); while νουθετειν had continually, if not always, the sense of admonishing with blame (Plutarch, De Prof. in Virt. 11; Conj. Proec. 22). Jerome, then, has only partial right, when he desires to get rid, at Ephes. 6:4, and again at Tit. 3:10, of ‘correptio’ (still retained by the Vulgate), on the ground that in νουθεσια no rebuke or austerity is implied, as in ‘correptio’ there certainly is: ‘Quam correptionem nos legimus, melius in Graeco dicitur νουθσια, quae admonitionem magis et eruditionem quam austeritatem sonat.’ Undoubtedly, in νουθεσια such is not of necessity involved, and therefore ‘correptio’ is not its happiest rendering; but it does not exclude, nay implies this, whenever it may be required: the derivation, from νους and τιθημι, affirms as much: whatever is needed to cause the monition to be taken home, to be laid to heart, is involved in the word.

In claiming for it, as discriminated from παιδεια, that it is predominantly what our Translators understand it, namely, admonition by word, none would deny that both it and νουθετειν are employed to express correction by deed; only we affirm that the other—the appeal to the reasonable faculties—is the primary and prevailing use of both. It will follow that in such phrases as these, ραβδου νουθετησις (Plato, Legg. iii. 700 c), πληγαις νουθετειν (Legg. ix. 879 d; cf. Rep. viii. 560 a), the words are employed in a secondary and improper, but therefore more emphatic, sense. The same emphasis lies in the statement that Gideon “took thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth” (Judg. 8:16). No one on the strength of this language would assert that the verb ‘to teach’ had not for its primary meaning the oral communicating of knowledge. On the relations between νουθετειν and διδασκειν see Bishop Lightfoot, on Col. 1:28.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The Greek, indeed, acknowledged, to a certain extent, the same, in his secondary use of ακολαστος, which, in its primary, meant simply ‘the unchastised.’ Menander too has this confession:

ο μη δαρεις ανθρωπος ου παιδευεται.

And in other uses of παιδευειν in profane Greek there are slight hints of the same: thus see Xenophon, Mem. i. 3. 5; Polybius, Hist. ii. 9. 6.


Dołączona grafika

Użytkownik mirek edytował ten post 2009-05-12, godz. 07:36

On zaś rzekł: Baczcie, by nie dać się zmylić. Wielu bowiem przyjdzie w imieniu moim, mówiąc: Ja jestem, i: Czas się przybliżył. Nie idźcie za nimi!" (Łk 21:8, BW)

#24 mirek

mirek

    Elita forum (> 1000)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3184 Postów

Napisano 2009-05-12, godz. 08:14

Oprócz słowa TAPEINOPHROSYNE (pokora, skromność, uniżoność) istnieje jeszcze inny termin bliskoznaczny, którego definicję przedstawiam za leksykonem Thayer:

PRAOTES - łagodność, delikatność, cichość, uprzejmość, skromność
Dołączona grafika

Skan ukazuje również definicję wyrazu PRAYPATHEIA, oznaczającego łagodność, uprzejmość.

Oto co na temat różnicy między słowami TAPEINOPHROSYNA oraz PRAOTES ma jeszcze do powiedzenia Richard C. Trench w swoim "Słowniku Synonimów Nowego Testamentu" (strony 148-153):

The work for which Christ’s Gospel came into the world was no less than to put down the mighty from their seat, and to exalt the humble and meek. It was then only in accordance with this its mission that it should dethrone the heathen virtue μεγαλοψυχια, and set up the despised Christian grace ταπεινοφροσυνη in its room, stripping that of the honour it had unjustly assumed, delivering this from the dishonour which as unjustly had clung to it hitherto; and in this direction advancing so far that a Christian writer has called this last not merely a grace, but the casket or treasure house in which all other graces are contained (γαζοφυλακιον αρετων, Basil, Const. Mon. 16). And indeed not the grace only, but the very word ταπεινοφροσυνη is itself a fruit of the Gospel; no Greek writer employed it before the Christian aera, nor, apart from the influence of Christian writers, after. In the Septuagint ταπεινοφρων occurs once (Prov. 29:23) and ταπεινοφρονειν as often (Ps. 130:2); both words being used in honour. Plutarch too has advanced as far as ταπεινοφρων (De Alex. Virt. ii. 4), but employs it in an ill sense; and the use by heathen writers of ταπεινος, ταπεινοτης, and other words of this family, shows plainly how they would have employed ταπεινοφροσυνη, had they thought good to allow it. The instances are few and exceptional in which ταπεινος signifies anything for them which is not grovelling, slavish, and mean-spirited. It keeps company with ανελευθερος (Plato, Legg. iv. 774 c); with ανδραποδωδης (Eth. Eudem. iii. 3); with αγεννης (Lucian, De Calum. 24); with κατηφης (Plutarch, Fab. Max. 18); with αδοξος (De Vit. Pud. 14); with δουλικος, δουλοπρεπης (Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 4); with χαμαιζηλος (De Leg. Spec. 1), and the like: just as the German ‘Demuth,’ born as it was in the heathen period of the language, is properly and originally ‘servilis animus, ’—‘deo’ (== servus) constituting the first syllable of it (Grimm, Wörterbuch, s. v.)—and only under the influences of Christianity attained to its present position of honour. Note. 23

Still those exceptional cases are more numerous than some will allow. Thus Plato in a very memorable passage (Legg. iv. 716 a) links ταπεινος with κεκοσμημενος, as in Demosthenes we have λογοι μετριοι και ταπεινοι: while Xenophon more than once sets the ταπεινος over against the υπερηφανος (Ages. ii. 11; cf. aeschyhs, Prom. Vinct. 328; Luke 1:51, 52): and see for its worthier use a noble passage in Plutarch, De Prof. in Virt. 10; and another, De Serâ Num. Vind. 3, where the purpose of the divine punishments is set forth as being that the soul may become συννους και ταπεινη, και καταφοβος προς τον Θεον. Combined with these prophetic intimations of the honour which should one day be rendered even to the very words expressive of humility, it is very interesting to note that Aristotle himself has a vindication, and it only needs to receive its due extension to be a complete one, of the Christian ταπεινοφροσυνη (Ethic. Nic. iv. 3. 3; cf. Brandis, Aristoteles, p. 1408; and Nägelsbach, Homer. Theologie, p. 336). Having confessed how hard it is for a man τη αληθεια μεγαλοψυχον ειναι—for he will allow no μεγαλοψυχια, or great- souledness, which does not rest on corresponding realities of goodness and moral greatness, and his μεγαλοψυχος is one μεγαλων αυτον αξιων, α ξιος ων—he goes on to observe, though merely by the way and little conscious how far his words reached, that to think humbly of oneself, where that humble estimate is the true one, cannot be imputed to any as a culpable meanness of spirit; it is rather the true σωφροσυνη (ο γαρ μικρων αξιος, και τουτων αξιων εαυτον, σωφρων). But if this be so (and who will deny it?), then, seeing that for every man the humble estimate of himself is the true one, Aristotle has herein unconsciously vindicated ταπεινοφροσυνη as a grace in which every man ought to abound; for that which he, even according to the standard which he set up, confessed to be a χαλεπον, namely τη αληθεια μεγαλοψυχον ειναι, the Christian, convinced by the Spirit of God, and having in his Lord a standard of perfect righteousness before his eyes, knows to be not merely a χαλεπον, but an αδυνατον. Such is the Christian ταπεινοφροσυνη, no mere modesty or absence of pretension, which is all that the heathen would at the very best have found in it; nor yet a self-made grace; and Chrysostom is in fact bringing in pride again under the disguise of humility, when he characterizes it as a making of ourselves small, when we are great (ταπεινοφροσυνη τουτο εστιν, οταν τις μεγας ων, εαυτον ταπεινοι: and he repeats this often; see Suicer, Thes. s. v.). Far truer and deeper is St. Bernard’s definition: ‘Est virtus quâ quis ex verissimâ sui cognitione sibi ipsi vilescit;’ the esteeming of ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so; the thinking truly, and because truly, therefore lowlily, of ourselves.

But it may be objected, how does this account of Christian ταπεινοφροσυνη, as springing out of and resting on the sense of unworthiness, agree with the fact that the sinless Lord laid claim to this grace, and said, “I am meek and lowly in heart” (ταπεινος τη καρδια, Matt. 11:29)? The answer is, that for the sinner ταπεινοφροσυνη, involves the confession of sin, inasmuch as it involves the confession of his true condition; while yet for the unfallen creature the grace itself as truly exists, involving for such the acknowledgment not of sinfulness, which would be untrue, but of creatureliness, of absolute dependence, of having nothing, but receiving all things of God. And thus the grace of humility belongs to the highest angel before the throne, being as he is a creature, yea, even to the Lord of Glory Himself. In his human nature He must be the pattern of all humility, of all creaturely dependence; and it is only as a man that Christ thus claims to be ταπεινος: his human life was a constant living on the fulness of his Father’s love; He evermore, as man, took the place which beseemed the creature in the presence of its Creator.

The Gospel of Christ did not rehabilitate πραοτης so entirely as it had done ταπεινοφροσυνη, but this, because the word did not need rehabilitation to the same extent. Πραοτης did not require to be transformed from a bad sense to a good, but only to be lifted up from a lower level of good to a higher. This indeed it did need; for no one can read Aristotle’s portraiture of the πραος and of πραοτης (Ethic. Nic. iv. 5), mentally comparing the heathen virtue with the Christian grace, and not feel that Revelation has given to these words a depth, a richness, a fulness of significance which they were very far from possessing before. The great moralist of Greece set πραοτης as the μεσοτης περι οργης, between the two extremes, οργιλοτης and αοργησια, with, however, so much leaning to the latter that it might very easily run into this defect; and he finds it worthy of praise, more because by it a man retains his own equanimity and composure (the word is associated by Plutarch with μετριοπαθεια, De Frat. Am. 18; with αχολια, Cons. ad Uxor. 2; with ανεξικακια, De Cap. ex In. Util. 9; with μεγαλοπαθεια, De Ser. Num. Vind. 5; with ευπειθεια, Comp. Num. et Lyc. 3; with ευκολια, De Virt. et Vit. 1), than for any nobler reason. Neither does Plutarch’s own graceful little essay, Περι αοργησιας, rise anywhere to a loftier pitch than this, though we might have looked for something higher from him. Πραοτης is opposed by Plato to αγριοτης (Symp. 197 d); by Aristotle to χαλεποτης (Hist. Anim. ix. 1; cf. Plato, Rep. vi. 472 f); by Plutarch or some other under his name, to αποτομια (De Lib. Ed. 18); all indications of a somewhat superficial meaning by them attached to the word.

Those modern expositors who will not allow for the new forces at work in sacred Greek, who would fain restrict, for instance, the πραοτης of the N. T. to that sense which the word, as employed by the best classical writers, would have borne, deprive themselves and as many as accept their interpretation of much of the deeper teaching in Scripture:1 on which subject, and with reference to this very word, there are some excellent observations by F. Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica, vol. iii. p. 398; by Rambach, Inst. Herm. Sac. p. 169;2 cf. also, passim, the lecture or little treatise by Zezschwitz, Profangräcität und Biblischer Sprachgeist, from which I have already given (p. 1) an interesting extract; and the article, Hellenistisches Idiom, by Reuss in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie. The Scriptural πραοτης is not in a man’s outward behaviour only; nor yet in his relations to his fellow-men; as little in his mere natural disposition. Rather is it an inwrought grace of the soul; and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God (Matt. 11:29; Jam. 1:21). It is that temper of spirit in which we accept his dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting; and it is closely linked with the ταπεινοφροσυνη, and follows directly upon it (Ephes. 4:2; Col. 3:12; cf. Zeph. 3:12); because it is only the humble heart which is also the meek; and which, as such, does not fight against God, and more or less struggle and contend with Him.

This meekness, however, being first of all a meekness before God, is also such in the face of men, even of evil men, out of a sense that these, with the insults and injuries which they may inflict, are remitted and employed by Him for the chastening and purifying of his elect. This was the root of David’s πραοτης, when Shimei cursed and flung stones at him—the consideration, namely, that the Lord had bidden him (2 Sam. 16:11), that it was just for him to suffer these things, however unjustly the other might inflict them; and out of like convictions all true Christian πραοτης must spring. He that is meek indeed will know himself a sinner among sinners;—or, if there was One who could not know Himself such, yet He too bore a sinner’s doom, and endured therefore the contradiction of sinners (Luke 9:35, 36; John 18:22, 23);—and this knowledge of his own sin will teach him endure meekly the provocations with which they may provoke him, and not to withdraw himself from the burdens which their sin may impose upon him (Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 3:2).

Πραοτης, then, or meekness, if more than mere gentleness of manner, if indeed the Christian grace of meekness of spirit, must rest on deeper foundations than its own, on those namely which ταπεινοφροσυνη has laid for it, and can only subsist while it continues to rest on these. It is a grace in advance of ταπεινοφροσυνη, not as more precious than it, but as presupposing it, and as being unable to exist without it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 23 ‘Demuth,’ born . . . in the heathen period of the language . . . and only under the influences of Christianity attained to its present position of honour. Kluge (s.v. Demuth) says that neither the word nor the conception belonged to the heathen period of the language. Both the word and the idea came into the old German language with Christianity.

1 They will do this, even though they stop short of lengths to which Fritzsche, a very learned but unconsecrated modern expositor of the Romans, has reached; who, on Rom. 1:7, writes: ‘Deinde considerandum est formulâ χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη in N. T. nihil aliud dici nisi quod Graeci illo suo χαιρεις s. ευ πραττειν enuntiare consueverint, h. e. ut aliquis fortunatus sit, sive, ut cum Horatio loquar, Ep. 1:8. 1, ut gaudeat et bene rem gerat.’

2 He concludes, ‘Unde dignus esset reprehensione qui graciles illas et exiles notiones quas pagani de virtutibus habuerunt Christianarum virtutum nominibus subjiceret.’


Dołączona grafika
On zaś rzekł: Baczcie, by nie dać się zmylić. Wielu bowiem przyjdzie w imieniu moim, mówiąc: Ja jestem, i: Czas się przybliżył. Nie idźcie za nimi!" (Łk 21:8, BW)

#25 bury

bury

    Domownik forum (501-1000)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 Postów
  • Lokalizacja:Rybnik

Napisano 2010-07-08, godz. 12:50

Jezus powiedział "kto mnie widział - widział Ojca", "Ja i Ojciec jedno jesteśmy". Paweł dodaje, że 'w nim na sposób cielesny mieszka cała Pełnia Bóstwa'.
Jezus jako człowiek jest pokorny i potulny. Zatem Jehowa Bóg jest pokorny i potulny.

#26 agent terenowy:)

agent terenowy:)

    Forumowicz (51-500)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPip
  • 284 Postów

Napisano 2010-07-08, godz. 15:18

Potulny?
Nie znalazłem. Nawet w NŚ.
Pokorny owszem.
A może to Jehowa okazał się pokornym jako Jezus na ziemi?
Wszak samo Towarzystwo stwierdziło, że Jehowa może się stać kim chce dla dobra ludzi.
Czy jakoś tak.
Kto przyjmuje pomazańca jako pomazańca, otrzyma nagrodę pomazańca. (por. Mat 10, 41).

#27 agent terenowy:)

agent terenowy:)

    Forumowicz (51-500)

  • Członkowie
  • PipPip
  • 284 Postów

Napisano 2011-05-01, godz. 09:49

Podam jeszcze jak Ps 18,36 oddaje Najnowszy Przekład wydany przez Paulinów:
"Ty mnie osłaniasz jak tarcza
i Twoja prawa ręka mnie podtrzymuje,
wywyższa mnie Twoje uniżenie"
Kto przyjmuje pomazańca jako pomazańca, otrzyma nagrodę pomazańca. (por. Mat 10, 41).

#28 koziarskiadam

koziarskiadam

    Początkujący (1-50)

  • Członkowie
  • Pip
  • 24 Postów

Napisano 2011-05-25, godz. 18:35

Przekład NW jest zgodny z niuansami znaczeniowymi odnośnego słowa hebrajskiego, które dopuszcza takie tłumaczenie. Jest też teologicznie poprawne twierdzenie, że Bóg jest pokorny. Chrystus będący obrazem Boga i odbiciem Jego istoty jest uznany jako osoba za wzór pokory, nie ma więc nic błędnego w twierdzeniu, że również pod tym względem pokazuje nam Boga.Nie wynika oczywiście z tego, że pokora Boga jest identyczna z pokorą stworzeń polegającą m.in. na uznaniu naszych błędów, słabości,ograniczeń. W odniesieniu do Boga posługujemy się tylko pojęciami analogicznymi, co oznacza jakieś podobieństwo, ale zarazem dużą różnicę i o tym nie należy zapominać.Pokora Jehowy polega na tym, że mimo, że jest Absolutem i należy Mu się od stworzeń bezwzględna i bezwarunkowa cześć, służba i posłuszeństwo, to jednak On w sposób uprzedzający troszczy się o nas, wspomaga i wspiera nas w naszej egzystencji i w sprawach zbawienia, pozwala poznać siebie i życzliwie zbliżyć do siebie i nawiązać serdeczną osobistą nie patrząc na naszą małość i znikomość. Co więcej, nie demonstruje wobec nas przejawów wszechwładztwa, toleruje nasze przewinienia a nawet zniewagi, nie nadużywa swojej władzy, za pośrednictwem swego ducha w różny sposób nam usługuje, pozwala się odrzucić z życia wielu osób na ich własne życzenie. Czy nie są to przejawy pokory? Równocześnie dziwię się byłemu ŚJ, że dla niego ta kwestia stała się przyczyną upadku duchowego i odejścia z organizacji. Stanowisko jakie zajął w tej sprawie i sposób jego sformułowania nacechowany pychą i brakiem szacunku dla ciała kierowniczego organizacji doprowadził de facto do tego, że on sam duchowo wyłączył się z organizacji zanim to zostało urzędowo ogłoszone.




Użytkownicy przeglądający ten temat: 0

0 użytkowników, 0 gości, 0 anonimowych