Jesus never draw distinction between himself and God. What are the verses? Jesus said only the Father knew the end of times but that doesn't contradict what he said about the Holy Spirit being God. That's why what Jesus said didn't deny his own divinity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
Jesus never draw distinction between himself and God. What are the verses? Jesus said only the Father knew the end of times but that doesn't contradict what he said about the Holy Spirit being God. That's why what Jesus said didn't deny his own divinity.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes he did, such as when he refers to God as being his father. And in the Garden it says he prayed to God, so if he was God how would that make any sense whatsoever?
Again, and for the final time, the key to getting a better understanding of the Trinitarian concept lies in understanding the use of "essence" in this context. IOW, Jesus is of God [i.e. the essence of God] but clearly is not God, which is also why we and the scriptures have different names for them.
In Catholicism, it's referred to as "the Mystery of the Trinity", thus something that is not fully comprehendible to us earthly critters.
Anyhow, this discussion is too much like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" to me, so I'm just going to move on. Just remember the word "essence" and how and why it's used in the Gospel.
Jesus was talking to God the Father in the Garden. He said not my will but thine be done. That supports believing in the Trinity because the will of Jesus and the Father are one. Adam had the breath of life but that has nothing to do with Jesus and the Father having the same essence. Just because we can't fully comprehend the Trinity doesn't mean that it isn't in the Bible.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
There is no claim that "Character" means "Exact Character".
The Greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (charaktēr) is defined and shown below:
The very image of his substance (Χαρακτηρ — charaktēr tēs hupostaseōs). χαρασσω — Charaktēr is an old word from τηρ — charassō to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = χαραγμα — tēr) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by χαρακτηρ — charagma (Acts 17:29; Revelation 13:16.). Menander had already used (Moffatt) υποστασις — charaktēr in the sense of our “character.” The word occurs in the inscriptions for “person” as well as for “exact reproduction” of a person. (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, A.T. Robertson, Broadman Press)
Our English word "character" comes from "Χαρακτηρ" but that does not mean "Character means Exact Character". It simply means the Greek charaktēr means exact reproduction, impress, mark and other definitions shown above.
Absolutely Clear! But every time we make progress on this you appear to take another step back.
No, there has simply been more obfuscation on your part…either that or you are confusing the Greek word “χαρακτηρ” (mark; exact reproduction) with the Greek word lepra “λέπρας” (leprosy).
As stated previously:.
No, it’s not correct.
I never claimed Χαρακτηρ means “exactness” at Leviticus 13:28. I stated LEPROSY (“λέπρας”) can be determined with exactness.
Leprosy (“λέπρας”) is not Mark ("Χαρακτηρ") , and Mark (Χαρακτηρ) does not equal Leprosy (“λέπρας”). These are two distinctly different words with two different meanings. There is no need to treat one word as if it were somehow the other, no need to confuse “Χαρακτηρ” with “λέπρας” especially when I've explained the difference multiple times already.
So rest assured I am not moving away from anything I’ve previously stated.
To be clear, it's your restatements that constantly move "farther and farther away" from my original statement.
#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks LEPROSY and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”
Leviticus 13:28 tells us it's "NOT leprosy". So now priest knows, exactly, positively and without any doubt his charge does not have leprosy, just as stated above. There is no need to move away from what I've previously stated.
My original claim was that NIV's and the NWT's translation of "Χαρακτηρ" as "exact reproduction" at Hebrews 1:3 was fine.
I've also stated, numerous times, that "Χαρακτηρ" should not be translated as "exact reproduction" at Leviticus 13:28. The reason for this is rather obvious: "Χαρακτηρ" did not keep it's original meaning. It changed because language is always changing.
Think of the word "gay". It used to mean "happy" or "light hearted". It now carries further meaning referring to one's sexual orientation. If you are not sure how Χαρακτηρ has been used in the past please read Robertson's comments above.
So at Leviticus it has its original meaning, and at Hebrews 1:3 it has it's added meaning. This is due to how "Χαρακτηρ" was used, especially by Paul.
Sorry, but I've never stated this. I appreciate the attempt to move the goalposts however.
If you read Leviticus you'll notice it helps the priest decide exactly who has leprosy and who does not. In the case of Leviticus 13:28, it's "not".
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
@Oeste
Just thought I'd remind you and everyone here that the Jewish opinion is that Jesus not only is not "a god," he is not "God" either. He is not deity of any size, shape, or form.
Three times the Tanakh tells us the nature of God: that he is not a man/mortal.
Numbers 23
יט לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה. 19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?
Hosea 11
ט לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה חֲרוֹן אַפִּי, לֹא אָשׁוּב לְשַׁחֵת אֶפְרָיִם: כִּי אֵל אָנֹכִי, וְלֹא-אִישׁ--בְּקִרְבְּךָ קָדוֹשׁ, וְלֹא אָבוֹא בְּעִיר. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury.
Job 9
לב כִּי-לֹא-אִישׁ כָּמוֹנִי אֶעֱנֶנּוּ; נָבוֹא יַחְדָּו, בַּמִּשְׁפָּט. 32 For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, that we should come together in judgment.
Just thought I'd remind you and everyone here that the Jewish opinion is that Jesus not only is not "a god," he is not "God" either. He is not deity of any size, shape, or form.
Three times the Tanakh tells us the nature of God: that he is not a man/mortal.
Numbers 23
יט לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה. 19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?
Hosea 11
ט לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה חֲרוֹן אַפִּי, לֹא אָשׁוּב לְשַׁחֵת אֶפְרָיִם: כִּי אֵל אָנֹכִי, וְלֹא-אִישׁ--בְּקִרְבְּךָ קָדוֹשׁ, וְלֹא אָבוֹא בְּעִיר. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury.
Job 9
לב כִּי-לֹא-אִישׁ כָּמוֹנִי אֶעֱנֶנּוּ; נָבוֹא יַחְדָּו, בַּמִּשְׁפָּט. 32 For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, that we should come together in judgment.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, which is why the Trinitarian concept according to the CC teaches that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God but not God in the literalistic sense.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The essence of God means the heart of what it means to be God. It means God in the most literal sense there is. You have really surprised me here, metis!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
For goodYou have really surprised me here, metis!
or bad? Hope you're enjoying the holiday. I ate way too many latkes with our celebration, and did I pay the price for that!
Not enough Pepto Bismal on the planet to help my stressed-out stomach.
Hi @Oeste
1) REGARDING THE ANCIENT USE OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (eng "Character") IN KOINE GREEK (PART ONE)
Oeste claimed : “the Greek charaktēr means exact reproduction” (post #884)
While χαρακτηρ could mean a “reproduction”, it did not mean an “exact” reproduction in ancient Koine Greek.
For example, in OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) a group is speaking of a statue and they remark Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης meaning that it is a “Representation of us” (our shape and form). The statue of a single person cannot be the “exact” representation of the group speaking, but rather it represented the group as a whole since it was similar to them.
Similarly, in Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text uses the word Character saying : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” which speaks “Of the foreign bearer on the Character”. The Characteristic (χαρακτηρ) in this instance simply identified the bearer as foreign. There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ (Characteristic) which identifies as foreign.
In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character when speaking of the heir to property saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…” While multiple individuals are noted in the document, only one qualifies or is seen as an heir. The other “Characters” are the names of others. The names that appear on a document are not an “exact representation” of the actual person. They are only letters that represent the individual. No exactness is implied.
In the same way, If I do not know how to write and simply make “my x”, that is my identifying character. It is not an exact representation of my name or myself, but it is a character which represents me and is sufficient to identify me.
Similarly, P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) has a text using the word χαραψτερ (Character) which reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” Meaning “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.”
Presumably, the great Lord had asked for a bust or picture to be made (the text doesn’t specify) and it was finished. While this is a representation of the Lord, it doesn’t imply an “exact representation”. If it did, the writer could have specified this by saying “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” which means “exact representation”. But he did not say this. He simply said “χαρακτηρα”.
Χαρακτηρ (Character) was used metaphorically as well and enough context had to be present to understand what was meant. We use this word metaphorically nowadays. If I say “Bob is such a “Character”, I imply that he is someone distinguished by some characteristic. You cannot tell if I am implying good or bad or something else without context. However, I am NOT implying that “Bob is such an “exact representation” as something else.
This is true of the ancient usage of this word. For example, in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text speaks of Augustus and Livia and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons …(referring to Augustus and Livia).
As with other usage, the text is not referring to an “exact representation”, but it demonstrates the transferred sense of Character (gk χαρακτηρ) into it’s sense of referring to the actual person.
The Stamp or impress implied by the word χαρακτηρ is not necessarily a picture or “ikon” but is more often words or numbers, on a seal. They can be a type of dress or a language spoken. ANYTHING which is sufficient to identify a thing is a Characteristic or Character. The words may represent a person and the numbers may represent a date, but none are specific for an “exact representation” of a thing.
For example the actual impression made by a stamp is a Χαραγμα.
New Testament Revelations text uses it as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20). It is not an “exact representation” of the beast, but it is merely an identifying characteristic or “mark”.
It was customary to affix to bills of sale or official docuents of 1st and 2nd centuries of the empire, a seal given the year and name of the reigning Emperor. The various seals used may or may not have had any effigy on them.
For example, on the back of CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) on the agreement of sale of a house, the seal read : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). There is no effigy or ikon on this Χαρακτηρ. The words are enough to identify the person or thing to which the seal refers. There is no implication of an “exact representation”.
Seals were not “exact” representations of a person or place or thing, but merely represents the authority under which all business took place, or a place or a thing.
The closest examples I could find to using χαρακτηρ as an “exact representation” is when a seal was also used to attest to a copy of a document of writing. The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ which says “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”.
However, the WRITTEN text is not an “exact representation” of ENGRAVED or INSCRIBED texts. They merely represent the letters of an engraved stone on paper. I think this is the closest example I could find that could be related to an exact representation. But it is the exception to the use and not the rule.
Even effigies and ikons of something were not considered “exact representations”. For example, In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) an engraved icon was made of a camel “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” to demonstrate what an Arabian camel looked like.
I have not seen the engraving, but presumably it is a version like like we might see in a picture book of animals from another place. It is not made to be an exact representation of a specific camel, but merely a representation of the species. It is to demonstrate what a class of camels looks like, but not a specific camel and it is not meant to be an “exact representation” of a specific camel.
Meanings of words evolve. This is true of χαρακτηρ as well.
Because a stamp was most often used for letters, it became used in the sense of a letter itself. For example, in P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” which he translates from a larger sentence as “I pray for your health “in this letter”.
In terms of coins P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp) but this doesn’t tell us if the stamp included an effigy or was to identify the time and place. Coins of Israel generally did NOT have effigies due to the prohibition against graven images but instead, had dates and places and leaders names. Though the text represented the leader or place, there was no “exact representation” implied (the coin may not have been stamped in the place marked on the coin), merely representation.
The word χαρακτηρ came to mean an endorsement as well. For example, in P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” in a sentence where the text says “ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.”
A Χαρακτηρ or χαραγμα need not even be an official mark of identification. For example
P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) speaks of a traveler who writes that he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. This informal “marking” simply identified his friends. This informal marking need not be an “exact representation” of his friends. He might have even written “Bobby” instead of "Robert". It was not exactness that made it a χαρακτηρ, but merely an identifying mark.
For example, when we took our kids to Disneyland, we “marked” our kids by putting each one in a bright “t-shirt” that had their name and a telephone number written on the inside. This was how we put our own family stamp on them which identified them.
Similarly, in P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) a son who is anxious for his fathers’ safety (owing to insecurity of the situation) writes, that “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
The point is that historically and in common useage, Χαρακτηρ was not a representation or reproduction that included “exactness” but was merely an identifying mark.
Other than your claim that Heb 1:3 implies "exactness", do you have any examples from ancient koine literature where the single word "Character" means "exact Character"?
2) REGARDING THE ANCIENT USE OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (eng "Character") IN KOINE GREEK (PART TWO)
Clear said : “6) THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 TELLS EXACTLY WHAT DESCRIBES LEPROSY AND WHAT DOES NOT
Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.
Oeste replied : “#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”
#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)
Oeste claimed : “the Greek charaktēr means exact reproduction” (post #884)
Clear asked : “Are you still claiming "Character" (χαρακτηρ) still implies "exactness" in leviticus 13:28?”
Oeste said : “Sorry, but I've never stated this. “
Oooookaay.
So, we've spent many posts and we are still where we started.
"Character" still means "Character" and not "exact Character" unless we add the adjective "exact".
Clear
εισιφυσισιω
1) REGARDING THE ANCIENT USE OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (eng "Character") IN KOINE GREEK (PART ONE)
Oeste claimed : “the Greek charaktēr means exact reproduction” (post #884)
While χαρακτηρ could mean a “reproduction”, it did not mean an “exact” reproduction in ancient Koine Greek.
For example, in OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) a group is speaking of a statue and they remark Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης meaning that it is a “Representation of us” (our shape and form). The statue of a single person cannot be the “exact” representation of the group speaking, but rather it represented the group as a whole since it was similar to them.
Similarly, in Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text uses the word Character saying : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” which speaks “Of the foreign bearer on the Character”. The Characteristic (χαρακτηρ) in this instance simply identified the bearer as foreign. There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ (Characteristic) which identifies as foreign.
In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character when speaking of the heir to property saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…” While multiple individuals are noted in the document, only one qualifies or is seen as an heir. The other “Characters” are the names of others. The names that appear on a document are not an “exact representation” of the actual person. They are only letters that represent the individual. No exactness is implied.
In the same way, If I do not know how to write and simply make “my x”, that is my identifying character. It is not an exact representation of my name or myself, but it is a character which represents me and is sufficient to identify me.
Similarly, P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) has a text using the word χαραψτερ (Character) which reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” Meaning “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.”
Presumably, the great Lord had asked for a bust or picture to be made (the text doesn’t specify) and it was finished. While this is a representation of the Lord, it doesn’t imply an “exact representation”. If it did, the writer could have specified this by saying “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” which means “exact representation”. But he did not say this. He simply said “χαρακτηρα”.
Χαρακτηρ (Character) was used metaphorically as well and enough context had to be present to understand what was meant. We use this word metaphorically nowadays. If I say “Bob is such a “Character”, I imply that he is someone distinguished by some characteristic. You cannot tell if I am implying good or bad or something else without context. However, I am NOT implying that “Bob is such an “exact representation” as something else.
This is true of the ancient usage of this word. For example, in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text speaks of Augustus and Livia and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons …(referring to Augustus and Livia).
As with other usage, the text is not referring to an “exact representation”, but it demonstrates the transferred sense of Character (gk χαρακτηρ) into it’s sense of referring to the actual person.
The Stamp or impress implied by the word χαρακτηρ is not necessarily a picture or “ikon” but is more often words or numbers, on a seal. They can be a type of dress or a language spoken. ANYTHING which is sufficient to identify a thing is a Characteristic or Character. The words may represent a person and the numbers may represent a date, but none are specific for an “exact representation” of a thing.
For example the actual impression made by a stamp is a Χαραγμα.
New Testament Revelations text uses it as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20). It is not an “exact representation” of the beast, but it is merely an identifying characteristic or “mark”.
It was customary to affix to bills of sale or official docuents of 1st and 2nd centuries of the empire, a seal given the year and name of the reigning Emperor. The various seals used may or may not have had any effigy on them.
For example, on the back of CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) on the agreement of sale of a house, the seal read : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). There is no effigy or ikon on this Χαρακτηρ. The words are enough to identify the person or thing to which the seal refers. There is no implication of an “exact representation”.
Seals were not “exact” representations of a person or place or thing, but merely represents the authority under which all business took place, or a place or a thing.
The closest examples I could find to using χαρακτηρ as an “exact representation” is when a seal was also used to attest to a copy of a document of writing. The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ which says “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”.
However, the WRITTEN text is not an “exact representation” of ENGRAVED or INSCRIBED texts. They merely represent the letters of an engraved stone on paper. I think this is the closest example I could find that could be related to an exact representation. But it is the exception to the use and not the rule.
Even effigies and ikons of something were not considered “exact representations”. For example, In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) an engraved icon was made of a camel “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” to demonstrate what an Arabian camel looked like.
I have not seen the engraving, but presumably it is a version like like we might see in a picture book of animals from another place. It is not made to be an exact representation of a specific camel, but merely a representation of the species. It is to demonstrate what a class of camels looks like, but not a specific camel and it is not meant to be an “exact representation” of a specific camel.
Meanings of words evolve. This is true of χαρακτηρ as well.
Because a stamp was most often used for letters, it became used in the sense of a letter itself. For example, in P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” which he translates from a larger sentence as “I pray for your health “in this letter”.
In terms of coins P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp) but this doesn’t tell us if the stamp included an effigy or was to identify the time and place. Coins of Israel generally did NOT have effigies due to the prohibition against graven images but instead, had dates and places and leaders names. Though the text represented the leader or place, there was no “exact representation” implied (the coin may not have been stamped in the place marked on the coin), merely representation.
The word χαρακτηρ came to mean an endorsement as well. For example, in P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” in a sentence where the text says “ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.”
A Χαρακτηρ or χαραγμα need not even be an official mark of identification. For example
P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) speaks of a traveler who writes that he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. This informal “marking” simply identified his friends. This informal marking need not be an “exact representation” of his friends. He might have even written “Bobby” instead of "Robert". It was not exactness that made it a χαρακτηρ, but merely an identifying mark.
For example, when we took our kids to Disneyland, we “marked” our kids by putting each one in a bright “t-shirt” that had their name and a telephone number written on the inside. This was how we put our own family stamp on them which identified them.
Similarly, in P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) a son who is anxious for his fathers’ safety (owing to insecurity of the situation) writes, that “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
The point is that historically and in common useage, Χαρακτηρ was not a representation or reproduction that included “exactness” but was merely an identifying mark.
Other than your claim that Heb 1:3 implies "exactness", do you have any examples from ancient koine literature where the single word "Character" means "exact Character"?
2) REGARDING THE ANCIENT USE OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (eng "Character") IN KOINE GREEK (PART TWO)
Clear said : “6) THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 TELLS EXACTLY WHAT DESCRIBES LEPROSY AND WHAT DOES NOT
Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.
Oeste replied : “#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”
#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)
Oeste claimed : “the Greek charaktēr means exact reproduction” (post #884)
Clear asked : “Are you still claiming "Character" (χαρακτηρ) still implies "exactness" in leviticus 13:28?”
Oeste said : “Sorry, but I've never stated this. “
Oooookaay.
So, we've spent many posts and we are still where we started.
"Character" still means "Character" and not "exact Character" unless we add the adjective "exact".
Clear
εισιφυσισιω
Last edited:
kjw47
Well-Known Member
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I not only have read it a great many times, I have also taught it.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Well, if you are saying that you don't believe that Jesus is God, you are surprising me for the better. I can only encourage youFor good
Hope you're enjoying the holiday. I ate way too many latkes with our celebration, and did I pay the price for that!
I'm having a wonderful holiday. I've decided that two jelly donuts are too much for one sitting. LOL
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thank you so much.Well, if you are saying that you don't believe that Jesus is God, you are surprising me for the better. I can only encourage you
I can understand, as being called a "jelly belly" is generally not considered to be a compliment.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
IndigoChild, thank you for bringing us back to thread theme!
Despite all efforts to bury it you march right in, grab the bull by the horns, and set Dilemma #3 front and center. Kudos for you!
I would just like to point out that the Watchtower agrees with you, at least at John 10:33:
· 66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”
- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567
- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567
So the Watchtower agree with you that Jesus is not God or a god.
The difference (and the problem) is that while Judaism is remarkably consistent in denying Jesus is “God” or “a god”, the Watchtower is not! As stated in the OP, the Watchtower has the same author, John, declaring Jesus “a god” at John 1:1, but denying he ever claimed to be “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around.
It’s a remarkable turnaround by John concerning the nature of Jesus.
Perhaps our Arian/Watchtower friends will one day explain how, in a span of 8 chapters, Jesus went from “a god” to "not “a god” but I was kind of hoping they would explain Dilemma #1 first.
God is always God, man is always man. God can unite with man, but that does not mean God is now man. In the Trinity, Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, not a hybrid or half and half. Also, let’s remember that these verses were written prior to the incarnation, and lastly, that it is the Word, and not the Father or Holy Spirit that became flesh.In any event, I don't want to get into a deep discussion about the Trinity as we're we've been way off theme as it is.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
You insist on this although virtually every lexicon and dictionary disagrees with you. There is simply no scholarly basis for your objection.
1. Can you explain why you deny “exact reproduction” but not “express image”?
Let’s pause here.
Thank you for your word study on Χαρακτηρ. I think you did an excellent job.
However no one is arguing about these particular translations of Χαρακτηρα. What I fail to understand is your objection to “exact” representation since it’s supported by lexicons, dictionaries and most importantly its immediate context in Hebrews 1:3.
2. We say “exact” representation because Paul used it that way, not because Aeschylus or Herodutus used it that way.
You assert Χαρακτηρ cannot mean “exact” representation because authors prior to Paul used it to mean “representation” only.
Using the exact same logic we can show that every source you’ve just quoted is also wrong and that Χαρακτηρα cannot possibly mean “representation” since the earlier meaning of Χαρακτηρ was “the instrument used in engraving or carving”:
STRONGS NT 5481: χαρακτήρ
χαρακτήρ, χαρακτηρος, ὁ (χαράσσω to engrave, cut into), from Aeschylus and Herodotus down;
1. properly, the instrument used in engraving or carving (cf. ζωστήρ, λαμπτήρ, λουτήρ, φυσητήρ; cf. our 'stamp' or 'die').
χαρακτήρ, χαρακτηρος, ὁ (χαράσσω to engrave, cut into), from Aeschylus and Herodotus down;
1. properly, the instrument used in engraving or carving (cf. ζωστήρ, λαμπτήρ, λουτήρ, φυσητήρ; cf. our 'stamp' or 'die').
In other words, using your criteria, Paul and the Greek authors are all wrong because they failed to use Χαρακτηρ in its original context to “engrave” or “cut into”, or even as “the instrument used in engraving”. Instead they use Χαρακτηρα to refer to the results of that engraving, such as "statue" or as the “character” or "qualities" of the individual whose image was engraved or impressed.
3. You suggest that if man is unable to make “exact” reproductions with an impress then the Father must be similarly constrained. I would consider any such suggestion a true “God in man's image” Christology but I don't see such a Christology reflected in scripture.
POST ONE OF TWO
INABILITY TO THINK HISTORICALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS (PART ONE)
Oeste said : "Using the exact same logic we can show that every source you’ve just quoted is also wrong and that Χαρακτηρα cannot possibly mean “representation” since the earlier meaning of Χαρακτηρ was “the instrument used in engraving or carving”: (post #895)
You are confused and your logic doesn't follow. You are not thinking historically.
As you pointed out, language is not static nor does a single word have a single meaning.
The earlier ORIGIN of the word in the context of an impression had to do with the tool that made the impression. Origins of words can help indicate why a certain word took on it’s contextual meaning. But word origins do not tell us what a word means in different eras or later contexts.
For example, the single word Χαρακτηρ (Character) did not mean "Χαρακτηρασ ακριβας" (exact Character) unless one added the adjective (ακριβας) "exact". This is the same in English. However, the context of the person speaking affects their perception of the meaning. To a “3 is really 1” trinitarian translator, then they may mentally add the adjective (which is not in the text), while a “3 is really 3” trinitarian may leave the word as it is and not add the adjective. A non-trinitarian may feel the text means something else entirely.
For example, you made the statement that “We say “exact” representation because Paul used it that way”. You assumed Paul is using the word “that way” (i.e. "your way") despite what Paul actually wrote. As we discussed, trying to translate by “mind reading” what Paul and the other writers meant, despite what they actually wrote, results in multiple translations. The text should be translated as it stands and not changed to fit the translators theology.
INABILITY TO THINK HISTORICALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS (PART TWO)
Oeste said : "However no one is arguing about these particular translations of Χαρακτηρα. What I fail to understand is your objection to “exact” representation since it’s supported by lexicons, dictionaries and most importantly its immediate context in Hebrews 1:3." (post #895)
Actually the translation is NOT supported by all lexicons and dictionaries and your theological context does not give you the right to change the text to support your theology any more than it gives the Jehovahs Witnesses the right to change text (which was the criticism they are often being taken to task for).
LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES ARE NO MORE STATIC THAN THE LANGUAGE THEY ARE DESCRIBING.
As you and I both pointed out, the word Χαρακτηρ seems to have originated with the tool that makes a mark. By association it later came to mean the actual mark itself. Similarly lexicons or dictionaries in the earliest age when the word only meant the “tool” itself, would only have included THAT definition of the word.
If another lexicon or dictionary had been written in a slightly later period when it meant BOTH the tool AND the mark made by the tool, then an ancient lexicon and dictionary would have indicated the additional meaning. Both the meaning of the word and the lexicon or dictionary would have changed to indicate that current usage.
At the time of Paul, common usage, or an ancient lexicon would not have indicated the word meant an “exact” tool, or an “exact mark”, or an “exact” anything. It would have simply indicated a “tool”, or a “mark”, or an “impression” or a “person”, or a “skin lesion” as we have discussed regarding it’s usage in Leviticus 13:28.
HISTORICAL usage, determines HISTORICAL meaning and what words mean to the people of the time the word was used. This is why it is important that you paid attention to the dates when Χαρακτερ was used in the early literature and what it meant at THAT time.
Let me give you some examples and pay attention to the time period the text is written and what Character meant at that time period.
WHAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT IN 300 B.C. TO THE A.D. PERIOD
1) Papyrus Syll 226 3.495.16 was written in approx. 320 b.c. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
The texts says “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” which speaks “Of the foreign bearer on the Character”. Here, χαρακτηρ merely “marked” the bearer as foreign. There is no implication of “exactness” and we cannot even tell what country the foreigner is from. No exactness.
2) Papyrus Syll 3 783.23 was written sometime after 27 b.c. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
The text speaks of Augustus and Livia and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons … In this case one cannot even tell who the phrase is referring to had the letter not told us earlier that it referred to Augustus and Livia. No exactness.
3) Papyrus OGIS 383.60 was written in the mid 1st century b.c.. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text refers to a group of people remarking that a statue they saw was a Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης. It was a statur that had “our shape” and “form” as a group. No exactness
WHAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT FROM 1 A.D. TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA
4) Papyrus Lond 854.11 was written from 1 to 2 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
The writer says he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. This informal “marking” simply identified his friends. This informal marking need was not an “exact representation” of his friends. No exactness
5) Similarly, the engraving of the Christian comrades of Perpetua and Felicity who were sent to the lions has a “group” engraving in stone, but it is not an exact representation by any means. No exactness
6) Papyrus Leid X xxiv.11 was written in 2-3 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
While the writer tells us “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.” “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” We cannot tell from this phrase whether Χαρακτηρ is an engraving or a bust or a painting or some other representation, nor can we tell if it was done by memory or of what age the representation was made or if certain facial features were changed (It was common to improve the skin of painting in the age of small pox such at to make the person look more handsome or beautiful than they were). No exactness.
7) The Papyrus Preisigke 5275.11 was written in 11 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text tells us that a “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”. “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
The “copy” was a papyral copy of an engraving. Since the paper is not like stone, one assumes the text of the engraving was copied. It was simply an indication that the words on stone were copied to paper. No exactness in implied.
8) Papyrus Oxy XIV 1680.12 was written in 3 to 4 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The son says to the Father, “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”. The context seems to be that the situation was fraught with insecurity and each could have lost the whereabouts of each other.
9) Papyrus Lond V 1658.8 was written in 4 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
“I pray for your health “in this letter”. “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” Just as the tool for engraving became the name of the mark made by the tool. A letter became a χαρακτηρ because it was the thing marked by a pen. Still, it is “a letter” and any letter could be called a χαρακτηρ. No exactness was implied.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
INABILITY TO THINK HISTORICALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS (PART ONE)
Oeste said : "Using the exact same logic we can show that every source you’ve just quoted is also wrong and that Χαρακτηρα cannot possibly mean “representation” since the earlier meaning of Χαρακτηρ was “the instrument used in engraving or carving”: (post #895)
You are confused and your logic doesn't follow. You are not thinking historically.
As you pointed out, language is not static nor does a single word have a single meaning.
The earlier ORIGIN of the word in the context of an impression had to do with the tool that made the impression. Origins of words can help indicate why a certain word took on it’s contextual meaning. But word origins do not tell us what a word means in different eras or later contexts.
For example, the single word Χαρακτηρ (Character) did not mean "Χαρακτηρασ ακριβας" (exact Character) unless one added the adjective (ακριβας) "exact". This is the same in English. However, the context of the person speaking affects their perception of the meaning. To a “3 is really 1” trinitarian translator, then they may mentally add the adjective (which is not in the text), while a “3 is really 3” trinitarian may leave the word as it is and not add the adjective. A non-trinitarian may feel the text means something else entirely.
For example, you made the statement that “We say “exact” representation because Paul used it that way”. You assumed Paul is using the word “that way” (i.e. "your way") despite what Paul actually wrote. As we discussed, trying to translate by “mind reading” what Paul and the other writers meant, despite what they actually wrote, results in multiple translations. The text should be translated as it stands and not changed to fit the translators theology.
INABILITY TO THINK HISTORICALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS (PART TWO)
Oeste said : "However no one is arguing about these particular translations of Χαρακτηρα. What I fail to understand is your objection to “exact” representation since it’s supported by lexicons, dictionaries and most importantly its immediate context in Hebrews 1:3." (post #895)
Actually the translation is NOT supported by all lexicons and dictionaries and your theological context does not give you the right to change the text to support your theology any more than it gives the Jehovahs Witnesses the right to change text (which was the criticism they are often being taken to task for).
LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES ARE NO MORE STATIC THAN THE LANGUAGE THEY ARE DESCRIBING.
As you and I both pointed out, the word Χαρακτηρ seems to have originated with the tool that makes a mark. By association it later came to mean the actual mark itself. Similarly lexicons or dictionaries in the earliest age when the word only meant the “tool” itself, would only have included THAT definition of the word.
If another lexicon or dictionary had been written in a slightly later period when it meant BOTH the tool AND the mark made by the tool, then an ancient lexicon and dictionary would have indicated the additional meaning. Both the meaning of the word and the lexicon or dictionary would have changed to indicate that current usage.
At the time of Paul, common usage, or an ancient lexicon would not have indicated the word meant an “exact” tool, or an “exact mark”, or an “exact” anything. It would have simply indicated a “tool”, or a “mark”, or an “impression” or a “person”, or a “skin lesion” as we have discussed regarding it’s usage in Leviticus 13:28.
HISTORICAL usage, determines HISTORICAL meaning and what words mean to the people of the time the word was used. This is why it is important that you paid attention to the dates when Χαρακτερ was used in the early literature and what it meant at THAT time.
Let me give you some examples and pay attention to the time period the text is written and what Character meant at that time period.
WHAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT IN 300 B.C. TO THE A.D. PERIOD
1) Papyrus Syll 226 3.495.16 was written in approx. 320 b.c. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
The texts says “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” which speaks “Of the foreign bearer on the Character”. Here, χαρακτηρ merely “marked” the bearer as foreign. There is no implication of “exactness” and we cannot even tell what country the foreigner is from. No exactness.
2) Papyrus Syll 3 783.23 was written sometime after 27 b.c. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
The text speaks of Augustus and Livia and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons … In this case one cannot even tell who the phrase is referring to had the letter not told us earlier that it referred to Augustus and Livia. No exactness.
3) Papyrus OGIS 383.60 was written in the mid 1st century b.c.. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text refers to a group of people remarking that a statue they saw was a Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης. It was a statur that had “our shape” and “form” as a group. No exactness
WHAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT FROM 1 A.D. TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA
4) Papyrus Lond 854.11 was written from 1 to 2 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
The writer says he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. This informal “marking” simply identified his friends. This informal marking need was not an “exact representation” of his friends. No exactness
5) Similarly, the engraving of the Christian comrades of Perpetua and Felicity who were sent to the lions has a “group” engraving in stone, but it is not an exact representation by any means. No exactness
6) Papyrus Leid X xxiv.11 was written in 2-3 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
While the writer tells us “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.” “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” We cannot tell from this phrase whether Χαρακτηρ is an engraving or a bust or a painting or some other representation, nor can we tell if it was done by memory or of what age the representation was made or if certain facial features were changed (It was common to improve the skin of painting in the age of small pox such at to make the person look more handsome or beautiful than they were). No exactness.
7) The Papyrus Preisigke 5275.11 was written in 11 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text tells us that a “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”. “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
The “copy” was a papyral copy of an engraving. Since the paper is not like stone, one assumes the text of the engraving was copied. It was simply an indication that the words on stone were copied to paper. No exactness in implied.
8) Papyrus Oxy XIV 1680.12 was written in 3 to 4 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The son says to the Father, “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”. The context seems to be that the situation was fraught with insecurity and each could have lost the whereabouts of each other.
9) Papyrus Lond V 1658.8 was written in 4 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
“I pray for your health “in this letter”. “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” Just as the tool for engraving became the name of the mark made by the tool. A letter became a χαρακτηρ because it was the thing marked by a pen. Still, it is “a letter” and any letter could be called a χαρακτηρ. No exactness was implied.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
WHAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA AND LATER CENTURIES
10) New Testament Revelations was written within the first century. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
For example, revelations uses a form of χαρακτηρ as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20). It is not an “exact representation” of the beast itself, but it is merely an identifying characteristic or “mark”.
11) Papyrus Ryl II 160(a)10 was written in approx. 14-37 a.d.) At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
“ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.” “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” No specific deeds were implied, but any deed could be implied. The endorsement could come from anyone, at any time, for any deed. It was a generic term used in a generic fashion. No exactness was implied.
12) Papyrus Flor I. 61.21 was written in approx. 85 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text uses Χαρακτηρ in the plural, referring to multiple individuals as a group and of this group it says “Of the characters only heir seen is…” : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” Multiple, somewhat generic individuals are noted in this reference to χαρακτηρων. There is nothing distinguishing one from another.
No exact person is implied.
13) Papyrus BGU IV 1088.5 was written in a.d. 142. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The phrase speaks of an engraved icon made to demonstrate a generic Arabian camel.
“χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” It was not made to be an exact representation of a specific, illustrious, or all important, famous, single camel, but merely a representation of the species. Nothing exact is implied.
14) Papyrus Oxy I 144.6 was written in 580 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text describes “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp. Χαραγματι does not indicate anything exact about the coin other than it had the mark of a stamp. No exactness was implied.
Thus it is that an ancient lexicon or ancient dictionary would not have defined the single word Χαρακτηρ (Character) as “exact Character”.
However, the meaning an usage in later eras may change.
To a trinitarian translator in the 1500s or 1600s, the “3 is actually 1” trinitarian theological model may have thought the underlying meaning was that Jesus had the “exact nature” or “exact character” as God and thus rendered the text to support the translators theology.
If this idea and usage becomes popular then lexicons and dictionaries will start including this as a meaning. However, this meaning did not exist in early Judeo-Christian periods and trying to read what Paul should have written rather than what he actually wrote is not translation, but paraphrasing and commentary.
Oeste, I have given you 14 examples demonstrating the use and meaning of the Koine Greek word Χαρακτηρ in common usage and meaning.
Do you have ANY examples from ANY common koine literature from ANY of these ages where "Character" meant "Exact Character" without the addition of the adjective "exact"?
Oeste said : “You suggest that if man is unable to make “exact” reproductions with an impress then the Father must be similarly constrained. “
This is a silly and bizzare mischaracterization you have made.
If God created a specific thing in the first place, then why would God be unable or "constrained" to make an exact reproduction of that specific thing such as an impress?
Oeste. I have no idea why you desire that "Character" means "Exact Character" or "exact impress" etc. I honestly don't see your motive other than to support a theological position.
Clear
ειακτζσετζω
WHAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA AND LATER CENTURIES
10) New Testament Revelations was written within the first century. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
For example, revelations uses a form of χαρακτηρ as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20). It is not an “exact representation” of the beast itself, but it is merely an identifying characteristic or “mark”.
11) Papyrus Ryl II 160(a)10 was written in approx. 14-37 a.d.) At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
“ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.” “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” No specific deeds were implied, but any deed could be implied. The endorsement could come from anyone, at any time, for any deed. It was a generic term used in a generic fashion. No exactness was implied.
12) Papyrus Flor I. 61.21 was written in approx. 85 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text uses Χαρακτηρ in the plural, referring to multiple individuals as a group and of this group it says “Of the characters only heir seen is…” : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” Multiple, somewhat generic individuals are noted in this reference to χαρακτηρων. There is nothing distinguishing one from another.
No exact person is implied.
13) Papyrus BGU IV 1088.5 was written in a.d. 142. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The phrase speaks of an engraved icon made to demonstrate a generic Arabian camel.
“χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” It was not made to be an exact representation of a specific, illustrious, or all important, famous, single camel, but merely a representation of the species. Nothing exact is implied.
14) Papyrus Oxy I 144.6 was written in 580 a.d. At this time the single word “Character” did not mean “exact Character.
The text describes “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp. Χαραγματι does not indicate anything exact about the coin other than it had the mark of a stamp. No exactness was implied.
Thus it is that an ancient lexicon or ancient dictionary would not have defined the single word Χαρακτηρ (Character) as “exact Character”.
However, the meaning an usage in later eras may change.
To a trinitarian translator in the 1500s or 1600s, the “3 is actually 1” trinitarian theological model may have thought the underlying meaning was that Jesus had the “exact nature” or “exact character” as God and thus rendered the text to support the translators theology.
If this idea and usage becomes popular then lexicons and dictionaries will start including this as a meaning. However, this meaning did not exist in early Judeo-Christian periods and trying to read what Paul should have written rather than what he actually wrote is not translation, but paraphrasing and commentary.
Oeste, I have given you 14 examples demonstrating the use and meaning of the Koine Greek word Χαρακτηρ in common usage and meaning.
Do you have ANY examples from ANY common koine literature from ANY of these ages where "Character" meant "Exact Character" without the addition of the adjective "exact"?
Oeste said : “You suggest that if man is unable to make “exact” reproductions with an impress then the Father must be similarly constrained. “
This is a silly and bizzare mischaracterization you have made.
If God created a specific thing in the first place, then why would God be unable or "constrained" to make an exact reproduction of that specific thing such as an impress?
Oeste. I have no idea why you desire that "Character" means "Exact Character" or "exact impress" etc. I honestly don't see your motive other than to support a theological position.
Clear
ειακτζσετζω
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you have a false image of sacrifice. It isn't people trying to appease an idol. In the history of Israel it is a reconciliation with Gods goodness. Only God is perfectly suited to reconcile. That is where substitution comes in. His sacrifice takes the place of ours.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nope. "Reconciliation" and "sacrifice" are not synonymous terms, although they can somewhat relate under certain conditions.
Secondly, again you miss the point, namely how God can be sacrificed to God? Thus, taken literally, it makes no sense. Where it does make sense is if taken in a symbolic sense, which I have no doubt Paul was using; and there's a good reason why he did that, and I can explain this if you wish.