1) Forum members : I very much agree with Orontes point so well made in posts # 382 and 383 (READ THEM) . We have already concluded multiple points with wonderful and firm data regarding historical Christian worldviews and no justifying data supporting the many new theories Billiardsball presented. For example :
Billiardsball replied : “The problem, Clear, is that you are cherry-picking. You are on record that if you pick certain historical texts, their context sheds light on the meaning of Μετανοεω. However, you are further on record that Bible contains errors and may not be safely used as a lexicon. That is cherry picking.”
Forum members : It is logical to selectively choose the most beneficial texts to accomplish ones purpose. If one needs directions when driving the streets of Los Angeles, a street map of the area is more helpful than a bible. If one wishes to understand how specific words were actually used by ancient Christians, then the early Christian texts using the words in their ancient context are the best indication of actual historical usage.
Choosing and using the correct TYPE of historical text is not the same as deceitful cherry picking bad data and presenting that, as good and authentic data. The bible is a wonderful historical witness of sacred things, but it is not a lexicon. If you need a lexicon, use a lexicon. If you need a street map, use a street map.
2) Billiardsball said : “ You are by saying repentance is change of behavior. I’m saying to have a rethink causes grief. Mine is the logical stance in this instance.”
I have merely demonstrated from multiple historical sources that repentance held deeper meaning than simply a "change of mind" to the ancient Christians.
If all we are left with is semantics and complaints of “cherry picking” and no significant historical data despite these many, many, posts, then we are done. I am perfectly satisfied with readers making historical judgments based on the data and discussion we’ve already had. If you are dissatisfied with how the discussions went, it is irrelevant.
3) Orontes : Hi, “I noticed that you actually DID read Diogenes and Diogenes said : “He (God) gave His own Son as a ransom for us…”. Giving a Son as " a ransom”, supports a “ransom” theory, not a penal theory where God punishes the innocent and rewards evil doers.
I think your point regarding loyalty to ideology determining the meaning of text, rather than allowing the text to determine ideology is a profound principle. I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that an ideology that is not based on authentic historical data cannot survive in an authentic historical context.
When I suggested to Billiardsball : “If you want to know what early Christians thought the word meant and how they used it, then you will also have to refer to their texts and descriptions as well.”, he replied “Why would I waste my time doing so? “ Readers interested in gaining some historical knowledge cannot afford to take the attitude that current ideology trumps knowledge and understanding.
The word Diogenes uses for sweet "exchange" is ἀνταλλαγῆς, which, anyone with some knowledge of Koine Greek can see as a compound having αλλασσω as it’s base. When used in Papyri Oxy IV 729.43 (of 137 a.d) and Syle 178.14,22 (of iv b.c.) Milligan points out that it refers to a thing which has been “bartered”. While this is an “exchange” of sorts, it is more than a simple exchange. It is one thing which is used to buy another thing. For examples, In BGU II. 597.16 it is a sack of wheat that is being “bartered” or “exchanged”. In both cases, one thing is used to “buy” another. It is a business deal (or contract or business covenant) that is taking place, thus the base word indicates an accounting model such as a version of the “ransom model”.
Other compounds of this base verb bear this same witness of use and meaning. For example, in BGU II 66.ii.ii (of ii a.d.) διαλλασσω refers to a “reconciliation” just as numbers must be reconciled in an accounting model OR ransom version. The verb is, in this case, a “change” that must take place (though “exchange” may be used, it is a reconciliation that is actually taking place).
The Pauline verb καταλλασσω is used in Papyrus Oxy XII, 1477.6 (of iii to iv a.d.) where one person is to be “reconciled” with another group of people (in this case, the mans’ offspring) “…ει καταλλασσομαι εις τον γονον” = “…am I to be reconciled with my offspring…”. The point is that it is used more as an accounting, not with money or with bartering, but to accomplish a change in relationships between individuals. Nothing in these usages suggests any punishment of an innocent individual.
As you correctly pointed out, the form of the word, μεταλλασσω is also transitioned to “exchange by leaving” or by “alteration” from one state, to another state of being. Thus one may quit one state and transition to another state. Μεταλλασσω Βιον was a common phrase meaning “I die” when one left one state of being (alive) and transitioned to the world of the dead. Papyri Par 22.14 (of 16 b.c.) and OGIS 326.15 (of ii b.c) both use forms of μεταλασσων Βιον in this way. Papyri Oxy X, 1282.18 (of a.d. 83) uses the same term “…υπο του γενομενου και μετηλλαχοτος της θνατος ανδρος…” referring to “…by the former husband, now deceased, of Thnas…” Papyri Ryland II. 108.9 says “απο κληρονομιας της μετηλλαχυιης ημων μη(τρος)...”, “from the inheritance of our deceased mother." It is referring of a change of state from one to another (life to death). I have other similar examples but the point is sufficiently made. It refers in these instances to a change or alteration to the original condition.
The compound συναλλασσω is similarly, “to reconcile”. New Testament Acts 7:26 uses “συνηλλασσεν αυτους εις ειρηνην..” for : “would have set them at one again”. It was a term that fit the Christian use in reference to the terms of the atonement (at-one-ment).
It is, a word applied to covenants and contracts. For example, in Papyri Oxy i.34 (verso, of 127 a.d.) says “τα των σ[υνα]λλασσοντων ονοματα, referring to “the names of the contracting parties”. In 2237.viii.36 (of 186 a.d.) it’s similarly used “ινα οι συναλλασσοντες μη κατ αγνοιαν ενεδρευονται”, saying “in order that persons entering into agreements may not be defrauded through ignorance.”.
All of these examples from plain and common koine greek lend themselves to the use of Christians in describing their covenant; their agreements; their “arrangements” with God that if they will honor their agreement with him, then he will honor his agreement with them. For example, "IF you endure to the end... you will be saved." These uses from common koine greek are not “biblical words”, but common words made “biblical use of”.
P Tebt II.413.12 (of ii/iii a.d.) uses the term when “it was arranged with you..” and in BGU IV.1062.16 (a.d. 236-7) describing one “…turning his back on (justice) and the contracts…”. Thus P Oxy I.70.4 (of iii a.d.) uses the sentence πασα κυρια ενγραφος συναλλαγη πιστιν και αληθειαν εχει.. for “every valid written contract is credited and accepted”.
None of these common and everyday uses of these compounds is consistent with the punishment of the innocent of the penal model. That is not “reconciliation”. But instead, All these common use have much more consistency with an accounting model or ransom model.
Understanding these basic principles regarding what words meant to those who used them is the value of paying some attention to history. This is the answer to Billiardballs' question as to why he should "waste his time" considering such data. One can know what they are talking about if one will gain knowledge.
In any case, since essentially none of the data or historical references provided in this thread have supported Billiardsballs modern Theories and essentially all of the historical and linguistic data have supported the early Christian model and worldviews, I will consider these issues closed unless someone actually has historically significant DATA that can support other theories as well as it does the earliest Christian worldviews.
Orontes and Billiardsball, I wish you both the very best of spiritual journies.
Clear
σισιφυσεω
Billiardsball replied : “The problem, Clear, is that you are cherry-picking. You are on record that if you pick certain historical texts, their context sheds light on the meaning of Μετανοεω. However, you are further on record that Bible contains errors and may not be safely used as a lexicon. That is cherry picking.”
Forum members : It is logical to selectively choose the most beneficial texts to accomplish ones purpose. If one needs directions when driving the streets of Los Angeles, a street map of the area is more helpful than a bible. If one wishes to understand how specific words were actually used by ancient Christians, then the early Christian texts using the words in their ancient context are the best indication of actual historical usage.
Choosing and using the correct TYPE of historical text is not the same as deceitful cherry picking bad data and presenting that, as good and authentic data. The bible is a wonderful historical witness of sacred things, but it is not a lexicon. If you need a lexicon, use a lexicon. If you need a street map, use a street map.
2) Billiardsball said : “ You are by saying repentance is change of behavior. I’m saying to have a rethink causes grief. Mine is the logical stance in this instance.”
I have merely demonstrated from multiple historical sources that repentance held deeper meaning than simply a "change of mind" to the ancient Christians.
If all we are left with is semantics and complaints of “cherry picking” and no significant historical data despite these many, many, posts, then we are done. I am perfectly satisfied with readers making historical judgments based on the data and discussion we’ve already had. If you are dissatisfied with how the discussions went, it is irrelevant.
3) Orontes : Hi, “I noticed that you actually DID read Diogenes and Diogenes said : “He (God) gave His own Son as a ransom for us…”. Giving a Son as " a ransom”, supports a “ransom” theory, not a penal theory where God punishes the innocent and rewards evil doers.
I think your point regarding loyalty to ideology determining the meaning of text, rather than allowing the text to determine ideology is a profound principle. I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that an ideology that is not based on authentic historical data cannot survive in an authentic historical context.
When I suggested to Billiardsball : “If you want to know what early Christians thought the word meant and how they used it, then you will also have to refer to their texts and descriptions as well.”, he replied “Why would I waste my time doing so? “ Readers interested in gaining some historical knowledge cannot afford to take the attitude that current ideology trumps knowledge and understanding.
The word Diogenes uses for sweet "exchange" is ἀνταλλαγῆς, which, anyone with some knowledge of Koine Greek can see as a compound having αλλασσω as it’s base. When used in Papyri Oxy IV 729.43 (of 137 a.d) and Syle 178.14,22 (of iv b.c.) Milligan points out that it refers to a thing which has been “bartered”. While this is an “exchange” of sorts, it is more than a simple exchange. It is one thing which is used to buy another thing. For examples, In BGU II. 597.16 it is a sack of wheat that is being “bartered” or “exchanged”. In both cases, one thing is used to “buy” another. It is a business deal (or contract or business covenant) that is taking place, thus the base word indicates an accounting model such as a version of the “ransom model”.
Other compounds of this base verb bear this same witness of use and meaning. For example, in BGU II 66.ii.ii (of ii a.d.) διαλλασσω refers to a “reconciliation” just as numbers must be reconciled in an accounting model OR ransom version. The verb is, in this case, a “change” that must take place (though “exchange” may be used, it is a reconciliation that is actually taking place).
The Pauline verb καταλλασσω is used in Papyrus Oxy XII, 1477.6 (of iii to iv a.d.) where one person is to be “reconciled” with another group of people (in this case, the mans’ offspring) “…ει καταλλασσομαι εις τον γονον” = “…am I to be reconciled with my offspring…”. The point is that it is used more as an accounting, not with money or with bartering, but to accomplish a change in relationships between individuals. Nothing in these usages suggests any punishment of an innocent individual.
As you correctly pointed out, the form of the word, μεταλλασσω is also transitioned to “exchange by leaving” or by “alteration” from one state, to another state of being. Thus one may quit one state and transition to another state. Μεταλλασσω Βιον was a common phrase meaning “I die” when one left one state of being (alive) and transitioned to the world of the dead. Papyri Par 22.14 (of 16 b.c.) and OGIS 326.15 (of ii b.c) both use forms of μεταλασσων Βιον in this way. Papyri Oxy X, 1282.18 (of a.d. 83) uses the same term “…υπο του γενομενου και μετηλλαχοτος της θνατος ανδρος…” referring to “…by the former husband, now deceased, of Thnas…” Papyri Ryland II. 108.9 says “απο κληρονομιας της μετηλλαχυιης ημων μη(τρος)...”, “from the inheritance of our deceased mother." It is referring of a change of state from one to another (life to death). I have other similar examples but the point is sufficiently made. It refers in these instances to a change or alteration to the original condition.
The compound συναλλασσω is similarly, “to reconcile”. New Testament Acts 7:26 uses “συνηλλασσεν αυτους εις ειρηνην..” for : “would have set them at one again”. It was a term that fit the Christian use in reference to the terms of the atonement (at-one-ment).
It is, a word applied to covenants and contracts. For example, in Papyri Oxy i.34 (verso, of 127 a.d.) says “τα των σ[υνα]λλασσοντων ονοματα, referring to “the names of the contracting parties”. In 2237.viii.36 (of 186 a.d.) it’s similarly used “ινα οι συναλλασσοντες μη κατ αγνοιαν ενεδρευονται”, saying “in order that persons entering into agreements may not be defrauded through ignorance.”.
All of these examples from plain and common koine greek lend themselves to the use of Christians in describing their covenant; their agreements; their “arrangements” with God that if they will honor their agreement with him, then he will honor his agreement with them. For example, "IF you endure to the end... you will be saved." These uses from common koine greek are not “biblical words”, but common words made “biblical use of”.
P Tebt II.413.12 (of ii/iii a.d.) uses the term when “it was arranged with you..” and in BGU IV.1062.16 (a.d. 236-7) describing one “…turning his back on (justice) and the contracts…”. Thus P Oxy I.70.4 (of iii a.d.) uses the sentence πασα κυρια ενγραφος συναλλαγη πιστιν και αληθειαν εχει.. for “every valid written contract is credited and accepted”.
None of these common and everyday uses of these compounds is consistent with the punishment of the innocent of the penal model. That is not “reconciliation”. But instead, All these common use have much more consistency with an accounting model or ransom model.
Understanding these basic principles regarding what words meant to those who used them is the value of paying some attention to history. This is the answer to Billiardballs' question as to why he should "waste his time" considering such data. One can know what they are talking about if one will gain knowledge.
In any case, since essentially none of the data or historical references provided in this thread have supported Billiardsballs modern Theories and essentially all of the historical and linguistic data have supported the early Christian model and worldviews, I will consider these issues closed unless someone actually has historically significant DATA that can support other theories as well as it does the earliest Christian worldviews.
Orontes and Billiardsball, I wish you both the very best of spiritual journies.
Clear
σισιφυσεω
Last edited:
