Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

INABILITY TO THINK HISTORICALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS (PART ONE)

Let's keep things in perspective:

INABILITY TO THINK SCRIPTURALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS SCRIPTURAL CONCLUSIONS (PART ONE)

That's better.

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.

Nah, the logic is there, and yes, I’m thinking historically. The most important thing though is that I’m thinking scripturally. This puts the historians in a supporting role but never in the lead role when interpreting scripture.

We look to history when there is insufficient scriptural context to determine a 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.

I understand the point you're making here @Clear and it's a good one. However I don't see how it applies to Hebrews 1:3 as "Exact Representation" is one place where Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree.

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.

Well not despite what Paul wrote but because of what Paul wrote. It’s Paul's context that defines scripture, not the historians.

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.

I don’t recall discussing “mind reading” with you before. You may be confusing hermeneutics with mind reading.

The text should be translated as it stands and not changed to fit the translators theology.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Look, here’s how the conversation’s seems to be going, at least from my perspective:


Oeste has just rushed into the courtroom after signing papers stating he is here represent the defendant. He introduces himself to the Judge and then turns to talk with the prosecutor.

Oeste: Sorry, I was running a bit late. I’m here to represent the interests of my client.

Clear: The majority Christian church, over there?

Oeste: Yes, exactly.

Clear: No, “not exactly”.

Oeste: What do you mean, “not exactly”?

Clear: You can represent them, just not exactly.

Oeste: Why not?

Clear: Because you represent them.

Oeste: That’s what I just told you.

Clear: Initially yes, but then you changed your story.

Oeste: What story?

Clear: That you’re here to represent them.

Oeste: I think I’ve been remarkably consistent with that since I arrived here.

Clear: You were until you changed it.

Oeste: Nothing has changed. I represent the majority Christian church in this matter.

Clear: Except you then claimed to represent them with “exactness”.

Oeste: Is that a problem?

Clear: No lawyer has ever claimed to represent their client with “exactness” before.

Oeste: Well I’m a new lawyer that does.

Clear: You can’t.

Oeste: Why not?

Clear: Look at the form you just signed Oeste.

Oeste: Okay, I have it hand and I’m looking at it.

Clear: Right there, at the top, where it says “Defendant’s Representative”, you printed and signed your name, didn’t you?

Oeste: Yes I did.

Clear: But the form didn’t say “Defendant’s Exact Representative” did it?

Oeste: Would there be some difference if it did?

Clear: (silence)

Oeste: Exactly!​

In other words, I think you're trying to make a distinction that has no difference.

 

[Oeste]

INABILITY TO THINK HISTORICALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS (PART TWO)

Let's get that perspective again:

INABILITY TO THINK SCRIPTURALLY WILL CAUSE ERRONEOUS SCRIPTURAL CONCLUSIONS (PART TWO)

That's better.

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...

Well enough of them DO support “exact representation” and that includes virtually every major lexicon and dictionary. Can we look hard and find some lexicon or dictionary that doesn’t have it? Sure, but then all dictionaries and lexicons don’t have the same definitions, otherwise they would be the same lexicon or dictionary.

...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...

Then by the exact same definition above, your theological context does not give you the right to change the text to support your personal theology that the representation is not exact.

...(which was the criticism they are often being taken to task for).

Actually I am DEFENDING the NWT's translation of Hebrews 1:3. It is YOU who are attacking it. Both the Christian church and the WT agree it's "exact representation" (which is the criticism you are attempting to take me to task for).

Make no mistake. This is your personal theology @Clear. The term "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3 is not in dispute by any reputable source.

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....

That would be historical, not scriptural.

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.

No one uses the words "exact character", however by the first century it is Paul, speaking by way of the Spirit, that tells us Christ exactly represents the Father at Hebrews 1:3.

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”....

Correct...as stated previously χαρακτηρ has different meanings depending on time (prior to Paul) and context.

...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.

Historians wouldn’t have defined Jesus as “risen Savior” either. You must turn to scripture for that.

Again, most of the examples you gave are not scripture, and the one or two that are ignore how Paul uses χαρακτηρ. As for the coins, if the press produces a stamped coin that is identical to the die it's an exact representation.

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.

No, it’s not paraphrasing and commentary, it’s sound exegetical study.

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"?

It’s not the HISTORICAL but the SCRIPTURAL meaning of a word that is primary as we are referring to how χαρακτηρ should be translated. My goodness! If we or Paul had limited our scriptural definition of χαρακτηρ to how historical Greeks used it, then we should abandon scripture and limit our conceptions of soul, spirit, God, salvation and redemption to their Greek definitions as well!

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.

Not at all…it’s based on Paul’s writings which metaphorically has Jesus as the impress, the express image or exact reproduction through the work of the Father’s hand. What is bizarre is your insistence on taking this literally.

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?

This is exactly the question I’ve been asking you. Why would the impress be anything but an exact representation? Why are you limiting this to what a man-made impress can do? Since Paul puts the entire metaphorical process in the hands of the Father, why look to the Greeks?

Oeste. I have no idea why you desire that "Character" means "Exact Character" or "exact impress" etc.

Well it’s not my “desire”; it’s simply what scripture and any reputable dictionary says: “exact reproduction”. I’m not sure why it is your desire to say differently.

I honestly don't see your motive other than to support a theological position.

My goodness Clear, I think I've allowed you to really dig yourself a hole here.

But that’s okay, I’ll explain the hole first and then show you a good way to get yourself out. (Continued)

 

[Oeste]

I honestly don't see your motive other than to support a theological position.

Continued...

Earlier I mentioned that the historic Christian church supports “exact representation”. This includes the Eastern, Catholic, Protestant and what have you.

I also stated It’s supported by dictionaries and lexicons.

I also stated it was supported by the Watchtower and New World Translation.

I also stated it was supported by scholars.

However there is one more group that supports “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3, and this last group you may be familiar with:

The Mormon (LDS) Church and Hebrews 1:3 –The Father has a physical body​

D Charles Pyle is an apologist (defender) of the Mormon faith who spoke at the first annual FAIR* (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) convention held in Ben Lomond California. As he stated to the attendees:

“…the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”​

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. Source

*FAIR later became FairMormon.org​

In other words, if Jesus does not “exactly represent” the Father, the whole Mormon argument that the Father has a physical body (In Mormon theology the Father was once a man) is edged just a little more out the window and becomes less provable using sources of traditional Christian scripture. Mormons need Hebrew 1:3 to say "exact representation" and this is one reason they support it.

So Clear not only disagrees with me and virtually every translation and scholar on the planet, his disagreement seemingly undermines the doctrines of the Mormon church.

However, IF Clear is correct, and there is no “exact representation”, he should immediately contact the LDS church, let them know of his findings, and forward his research and explanations as given on this thread. His insight may initiate a rather welcome turn in Mormon doctrine.

Surely Clear has amply demonstrated how the LDS church has dug a theological hole at Hebrews 1:3 with "exact representation" and its explanation. Perhaps his clear analysis and insights can offer the church a way to dig itself out. Imagine a world where Mormons no longer believe the Father once had a physical body!

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste :

The gist of your argument seems to be a theological position.
The gist of my argument has always been a historical linguistic position.

My theological position is that Jesus is the same being as the God of the Old Testament. This position assumes that there are basic characteristics that are the same (EXACTLY the same).
Hoever, I do not agree that God becomes physically tired or that he is ignorant of certain facts (which must be part of his nature if he possesses “exactly” the same characteristics as Jesus).
There are certain differences which mean they do not share the same “exact” nature.

That aside, my argument is based on historical linguistics of koine definitions and language useage rather than theology.




WHAT WAS THE MEANING OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ IN THE TIME PERIOD WHEN HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN

We both agree that χαρακτηρ meant an engraving tool in its origins.
We both agree that the meaning of words, including the word χαρακτηρ, change over time with different usage.
If Χαρακηερ did not evolve in it’s meaning from engraving tool to image or impression or another meaning, then Hebrews 1:3 would mean Jesus “Who in the radiance of his glory, and “the engraving tool of his person”…

What we disagree on is the meaning of χαρακτηρ in the time period when Paul was writing and in earlier periods.


MODERN LEXICONS VERSUS ANCIENT LEXICONS

You have quoted modern lexicons that indicate what the word has come to mean.
I have quoted ancient lexicons that indicate what the word meant in various time periods.

For examples :

Papyrus Syll 226 3.495.16 of approx 320 b.c.
Papyrus Syll 3 783.23 of 27 b.c
Papyrus OGIS 383.60 of mid 1st century b.c..
Papyrus Lond 854.11 of 1 to 2 a.d.
Papyrus Leid X xxiv.11 of 2-3 a.d.
Papyrus Preisigke 5275.11 of 11 a.d.
Papyrus Oxy XIV 1680.12 of 3 to 4 a.d.
Papyrus Lond V 1658.8 of 4 a.d.
New Testament Revelations of the first century.
Old Testament Leviticus 13:28
Papyrus Ryl II 160(a)10 of 14-37 a.d
Papyrus Flor I. 61.21 of 85 a.d.
Papyrus BGU IV 1088.5 of 142.
Papyrus Oxy I 144.6 of 580 a.d.

In all of these lexiconic uses and definitions, “Character” did not mean “exact Character” unless the writer added an adjective.


It is correct that the translators of 1500 years later added the adjective “exact” to “Character” and it has become an accepted translation in the modern era. However it was not so at the time we are speaking of.

You are arguing what the word has come to mean in a specific phrase, I am arguing what the word meant in the same phrase in the time period when the phrase was written.

IF you have any examples from any Greek literature of the period we are speaking of where the single word “character” means “exact character”, then I will certainly yield to your claim that “character” could mean “exact character” in the time period when Hebrews was written. You have been given over a dozen examples from the time period which demonstrate "character" meant "character" and not "exact character". All you need, is to provide a single example from the literature of that time period that supports your theory.



Oeste said : "Earlier I mentioned that the historic Christian church supports “exact representation”. This includes the Eastern, Catholic, Protestant and what have you."
I very much agree that the modern churches use “exact representation”, “express image”, etc.
This simply means that in their modern usage, “Character” in Hebrews has come to mean “exact” or “express” Character. It has nothing to do with the ancient usage of the word in Koine Greek.

MODERN USAGE AND MEANING DOES NOT AFFECT ANCIENT, HISTORICAL USAGE AND HISTORICAL MEANING
If the word “Character” takes on the meaning of “Comedian” in the modern useage, such as when one says "Eddie Murphy is such a character!", it still doesn’t change the meaning of "Character" in hebrews to "Comedian".

Hebrews would not then mean that Jesus was the “exact Comedian” that God is.
Modern usage doesn’t affect ancient meaning.



Clear said : “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...”

Oeste said : “Then by the exact same definition above, your theological context does not give you the right to change the text to support your personal theology that the representation is not exact.”

I have not been arguing theology.
The theology that Jesus is the God of the old Testament is perfectly fine with me.
I am talking about the meaning of a single word in ancient koine Greek.
“Character” meant “Character” regardless of my agreement that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament.


Oeste said : “No one uses the words "exact character", however by the first century it is Paul, speaking by way of the Spirit, that tells us Christ exactly represents the Father at Hebrews 1:3.”

I very much agree that “no one uses the words ‘exact character”.
This has always been my point.
The greek base text does not use the words "exact Character", or "exact anything".



PERSONAL THEOLOGY AFFECTS INTERPRETATION (AND TRANSLATION)

Just as your admission that “no one uses the word ‘exact’ character’ describes specific words, your statement that “Paul [is] speaking by way of the spirit, that tell us Christ exactly represents the Father…” is an interpretive statement. While the interpretive statement is fine, it also reflects how a translator translates.



EXAMPLES OF INTERPRETATION AFFECTING TRANSLATION – THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Martin Luthers translation was the first, wildly successful vernacular translation.

He viewed the second of the ten commandments as a “judisches sachenspiegel” (a specific “case law” meant for jews only).
Thus, his original translation left out the second of the ten commmandments (and he split the 9th so that his version of the old testament would still have 10 commandments).

Whether Luther was theologically correct or not is not the linguistic point I am making.
The linguistic point is that his theology affected his translation such that it changed the 10 commandments in the protestant bible.

This is why the ten commandments were different between Protestants and Catholics for a time.


There are literally thousands of changes made to the original text, made by translators who cannot help but insert their theology into the text they are creating.



DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE FROM ANY HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHERE "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER"?
I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.
If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek.


Clear
ειακδρσεφιω

 

[Oeste]

What we disagree on is the meaning of χαρακτηρ in the time period when Paul was writing and in earlier periods.

Most definitely!

MODERN LEXICONS VERSUS ANCIENT LEXICONS

You have quoted modern lexicons that indicate what the word has come to mean.
I have quoted ancient lexicons that indicate what the word meant in various time periods.

Did any of these ancient lexicons refer to a χαρακτηρ made by an impress or die by Divine hands?

It is correct that the translators of 1500 years later added the adjective “exact” to “Character” and it has become an accepted translation in the modern era. However it was not so at the time we are speaking of.

The meaning of the word χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3 has not changed. It still carries the exact same meaning used by Paul.

You are arguing what the word has come to mean in a specific phrase, I am arguing what the word meant in the same phrase in the time period when the phrase was written.

You are arguing what the word meant in other sources besides the bible, then using these foreign sources to interject meaning into the bible. I am arguing what the word χαρακτηρ meant at Hebrews 1:3.

IF you have any examples from any Greek literature of the period we are speaking of where the single word “character” means “exact character”, then I will certainly yield to your claim that “character” could mean “exact character” in the time period when Hebrews was written.

Why do you defer to Greek literature to determine what Paul meant at Hebrews 1:3. Let scripture interpret scripture, rather than let Greek literature interpret scripture.

You have been given over a dozen examples from the time period which demonstrate "character" meant "character" and not "exact character". All you need, is to provide a single example from the literature of that time period that supports your theory.

I've already shown that. Paul uses χαρακτηρ as an impress on a die. When the die is struck it produces exactly what is on the die. This is how Paul uses χαρακτηρ.

Oeste said : "Earlier I mentioned that the historic Christian church supports “exact representation”. This includes the Eastern, Catholic, Protestant and what have you."
I very much agree that the modern churches use “exact representation”, “express image”, etc.
This simply means that in their modern usage, “Character” in Hebrews has come to mean “exact” or “express” Character. It has nothing to do with the ancient usage of the word in Koine Greek.

Except that's exactly how Paul used χαρακτηρ.

APPEALING TO FOREIGN SOURCES TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE

@Clear suggests we appeal to foreign sources to determine word meaning in scripture. Such practices can be fraught with peril (for example, the Greek conception of "Divine" differs substantially from that of scripture).

When interpreting scripture it is always better to let scripture interpret scripture and let foreign sources perform a supporting or contrasting role.

The greek base text does not use the words "exact Character", or "exact anything".

Sure it does. Just consult a Greek concordance or dictionary.

PERSONAL THEOLOGY AFFECTS INTERPRETATION (AND TRANSLATION)

Just as your admission that “no one uses the word ‘exact’ character’ describes specific words, your statement that “Paul [is] speaking by way of the spirit, that tell us Christ exactly represents the Father…” is an interpretive statement. While the interpretive statement is fine, it also reflects how a translator translates.

This puzzles me. Since all of Christianity and even secular scholars agree that “exact representation” is perfectly fine, why do think the theology “personal”? Wouldn’t Universal be more appropriate?

There are literally thousands of changes made to the original text, made by translators who cannot help but insert their theology into the text they are creating.

Again, we have no indication that translators are “inserting” their theology into the text at Hebrews 1:3. There is no controversy surrounding the text. No debate between “very image” or “exact reproduction”. Both are fine and dandy for translators to use.

“Exact representation” is universally accepted as proper translation.

(Continued)

 

[Oeste]

How Paul used χαρακτηρ

The double clause that opens v.3 describes the Son’s relation to God more directly and even more unequivocally, not now in his creative role but in hi essential nature: his is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” He is, in other words, as in John 1:14, 18 God made visible. To see what God is like we must look at the Son. “Radiance” (apaugasma, GK 575) means literally the “outshining” (though it is sometimes also used of a “reflection”) of the glory that is God’s essential character, while “exact representation” translates the vivid Greek metaphor charaktēr, “imprint, stamp” (GK 5917), used, for instance, of the impression made on a coin, which exactly reproduces the design on the die. (The idea is the same as the more familiar phrase “the image of God.”) Again there is a close echo of Colossians 1:15, 19: “He is the image of the invisible God…God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Longman & Garland, p.38

DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE FROM ANY HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHERE "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER"?
I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.
If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek.

Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that:

Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689, ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα. Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας, the lines of the countenance. Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται. Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55), ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν (the likeness of man to God) μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως (viz. of God and the creation) ἀπεμάττετο (scil. man, while he was alone) τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:—and, 2. of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα imparted by God to man τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως, Moses naming the same εἰκών, to shew ὅτι ἀρχέτυπον μὲν φύσεως λογικῆς ὁ θεός ἐστι, μίμημα δὲ καὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἄνθρωπος: De Plant. Noë, § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου εἰκόνα, δόκιμον εἶναι νομίσας οὐσιωθεῖσαν κ. τυπωθεῖσαν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ, ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀΐδιος λόγος. Here the λόγος is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine. Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex. Hebrews 1:1 - Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary - Commentaries - StudyLight.org​

However you don't have to chase down all those sources since a simple question will make the solution apparent and self-evident:

HISTORICAL VS. SCRIPTURAL RECORD - DIFFERENT CONTEXTS PRODUCE DIFFERENT MEANINGS


The items described in @Clear’s historical record are not perfect, so by definition they are going to be less exact. Jesus, on the other hand is perfect, just as the Father is perfect, so he represents the Father perfectly, which means the impress was precise and exact.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:10)

And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, (Hebrews 5:9)

For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:28)​

So the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Was the χαρακτηρ in any of the examples given by @Clear described as "perfect"?

If the authors of these examples describe the χαρακτηρ as "perfect" then he has his answer. For example, if the coin made by the impress is described as "perfect" he would also have the proper context as used by Paul. He would also know that it exactly matched what was on the die.

If the dozen or so authors he describes are silent on the issue, or make no claims of the impress or Χαρακτηρ as perfect, then we have a much different context, and a much different meaning.

A different context will yield a different meaning, whereas a similar context will yield similar meanings. By considering what Paul states holistically we can come to a better understanding of his intent at Hebrews 1:3.

This is not an interpretation of Paul so much as it is the literal statement of Paul. Christ’s character is as perfect as the Father, no more and certainly no less, and therefore the representation of the Father's character is “exact”. When we see Jesus we see the Father. We see "exactness".

I've stayed up too late as it is and my daughter will be dragging me to open presents in the morning. It's been a tough year but we are blessed.

Merry Christmas to you @Clear and to everyone on the forum.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste.

There are multiple problems with your last post. I am traveling and only have my phone to text. I will be back home on Weds the 30 th and will start a reply then.

I hope your Christmas holidays were wonderful.

Christmas is such a wonderful time to remember our savior Jesus Christ and his superlative character which allowed him to have wrought the superlative atonement for all mankind. Good holidays Oeste.

Clear

 

[Oeste]

No worries, no rush. It may take a while for me to respond to your next post.

Safe travels @Clear!

 

[kjw47]

I believe God is everywhere.

I have no problem with God praying to Himself.

God didnt pray to himself. (John 20:17( mortal) (Rev 3:12( back in heaven.) You wont believe Jesus.

 

[SonOfElElyon]

Christ is a conduit of the most high God. A point of expression.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Christ is a conduit of the most high God. A point of expression.

In your opinion.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste ;

Can we discuss your "examples" first and then go on to discuss your "logical arguments" second?


Clear said to Oeste
"I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.
If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek." (Post #904)


Oeste responded : "Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: " in post #906

And then Oeste provided a cut and past from a commentary but none of these examples support the claim that the lone greek word "Character" actually means "exact Character" (without the addition of the adjective "exact").

Lets look at the examples from the cut and paste oeste provided :


1) Oeste offered : “Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) “

Though I lived in Germany and spoke German when I was younger, my German is rusty. However, Delizsch’s remarks do not speak to nor even mention the specific meaning of the word “Character” in Koine greek. His comments have to do with the aura or “glory” surrounding God and it’s relationship to Gods character of Fire and light which he reveals.

Why did you offer these irrelevant comments to try to show “Character” meant “exact Character” in early greek literature? Can you explain?




REGARDING THE “EXACTNESS” OF ANCIENT “IMPRESIONS”

2) Oeste offered :
a) “and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “

b) “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die.


Both of these comments speak of engraved or stamped images. They do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.
You seem to assume that the “impression” of a die in 70-100 a.d. was somehow “exact”.

Below is a picture of a group of widows mites (singular : Lepton)

One can see with their own eyes the great variation in the Images, depth, clarity, centering, coin size, coin shape, etc. Why do you think this sort of variation and "unexactness" indicates the various Characters or coins are “exactly” like one another or that the bare word “Character” means “exact character”?

3) Oeste offered : “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,

Can you explain why you think the Cypriot type of “character” referred to used here is relevant to your attempt to demonstrate “Character” meant “exact character” in ancient Koine Greek?




4) Oeste offered : “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.

Can you explain why you think the silver and Gold mentioned here shows the bare ancient koine word “Character” meant “exact Character”?




5) Oeste offered : “Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας, the lines of the countenance.

I would actually have used this quote to show that the word “Characteristic” simply meant “lineaments” by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished.
There is nothing in the text to indicate “lineaments” meant “exact lineaments”.

Can you explain why you think this demonstrates the ancient koine word “Character” meant “Exact Character”? Or that lineaments means “exact lineaments” without the addition of the adjective “exact”?



6) Oeste offered : “Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται.

If Lucian points out that a mirror is an αντιμορφων rather than a true μορφων of an image, why would you offer what clearly demonstrates “unexactness” in an attempt to show the ancient Greek word “Character” meant “exact Character”.

As another strange offering, the “shapelessness” (αμορφοσ) of the “character” implied in Demonsth. clearly does not indicate exactness, but rather, it demonstrates the opposite. Unexactness.

And the third example simply describes that it is NOT what we see but in the spoken, or written thoughts (homilies) that the soul’s character is best seen. This demonstrates UNEXACTNESS in a visual image to demonstrate Character, not exactness.

Can you explain why you think ANY of these support or are even relevant to support your theory?




7) Oeste offered : “Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55),

Can you explain why you think the lines and forms (i.e. “the characteristics”) of a city plan shows that “Character” meant “Exact Character” in ancient koine Greek?




8) Oeste offered : “ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν (the likeness of man to God) μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως (viz. of God and the creation) ἀπεμάττετο (scil. man, while he was alone) τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:

Why do you think that the mere mention of a “Character” living in heaven (in the text, de Mundi), or the inability to know what a body “in heaven” is like (ib), or that the different nature “in heaven” or the mere words mentioning the “Character” of a soul shows that the ancient Koine word for “Character” meant “Exact Character”?

It seems that you are unable to read enough Greek to see that these “examples” you think you are offering either undermine or are irrelevant to your demonstration of your theory that “Character” meant “Exact Character”.

Do you read Koine?




9) Oeste offered : “So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα imparted by God to man τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως,

In your example, Philo says the soul of man is a type of Gods power. IF you are suggesting that Greek Character means “exact Character”, then how is man’s soul “exactly” like that of God, or “exactly” like God’s power? How does such a principle demonstrate that in ancient Koine, the word "Character" , meant "Exact Character"?




10) Oeste offered : “Moses naming the same εἰκών, to shew ὅτι ἀρχέτυπον μὲν φύσεως λογικῆς ὁ θεός ἐστι, μίμημα δὲ καὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἄνθρωπος: De Plant. Noë, § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου εἰκόνα, δόκιμον εἶναι νομίσας οὐσιωθεῖσαν κ. τυπωθεῖσαν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ, ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀΐδιος λόγος. Here the λόγος is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine.

Philo here is speaking of the mind and soul of man which he says, is “an image of the divine and unseen being” in language similar to the previously mentioned text ("example" number 9).

In this example however, it says that man’s spirit is “a coin” made of sterling which is “stamped and impressed with the seal of God.” almost exactly like the language in Hebrews 1:3.
However, while Hebrews applies to the nature of Jesus, Philo is applying this nature to the soul or spirit of man.

Why would Philo mean that man is in the "exact" character of God if "exact" is what is meant here?

How does Philo’s application of this sort of “Character” to mankind having the imprint of Gods nature demonstrate that “Character” meant “exact Character” in ancient Koine Greek language?






11) Oeste offered : “Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex

I agree with Clement that the use of the Greek word “Character” (or “Image”) in this sentence by Clement to the Corinthians) means “Image” or “likeness”.

However, Clement does not use it to mean “exact image” or “exact likeness” in this example.

For example, Clement says God formed man, the most excellent and greatest of Gods creatures “in the ‘character’ of [Gods] own image. (In the “exact character” according to your theory).

Why do you think this example demonstrates that the lone and single Greek word “Character” meant “exact Character” in Koine Greek?


What we are left with is simply more examples that show the greek word "Character" did not mean "exact Character" (unless we add the adjective "exact.)

Oeste. If NONE of these examples support your theory that the lone and single word "Character" means "Exact Character", Why in the world would you offer these examples which show your theory is incorrect?

Are you able to read koine greek?





In any case Oeste, Thank you for the good wishes at Christmas time.

I am so very grateful for Jesus, my savior and for his wonderful and superlative Character, without which he would not have been able to have wrote a superlative atonement for all of mankind.
This is a season to be so grateful for our savior.
I hope your Christmas and all of your lifes' journey is wonderful and insightful Oeste.


Clear
ειακακσεσεω

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the only one who can be reconciled to God is God. No one else is good enough. An example Bill Gates wants to be reconciled to me financially but he can't because financially we are quite unequal. He would have to give me a ton of money for us to be equal and reconciled.

Please do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God can be sacrificed to God? Thus, taken literally, it makes no sense.

You are sooooo right.

 

[Oeste]

Can we discuss your "examples" first and then go on to discuss your "logical arguments" second?

I wouldn’t mind but the examples are logical examples so they’re kind of woven together. However if you think you can pull it off, I say, go for it!

Clear said to Oeste

"I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.

Yes, you certainly have! I have no argument with that.

If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.

If you cannot, then We are left where we started.

You provided everything I needed to show this a while ago. We just needed to get a few things squared away. For example, the etymology behind Χαρακτηρ and it’s metaphorical usage by Paul.

Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek." (Post #904)

Oeste responded : "Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: " in post #906

And then Oeste provided a cut and past from a commentary which did not support his claim.

This is what I like about you @Clear… after a long day you help end it with a bit of humor.. Why can’t other posters follow your fine example?


Of course the commentary supports my claim which is why I posted it and yes, it refutes Clear's argument but that’s simply an extended benefit. But Clear has gone above and beyond....I never expected him to take exception to Alford’s lifelong work! His attack on the Greek Testament Exegetical Commentary is like a Christmas gift which I’ll unwrap later.

But it’s not just the posted commentary, @Clear. You’ve supported my claim a number of times as well. We just haven’t had a chance to discuss it.


For example, you stated "I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where "χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.”


You also stated: Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek." (Post #904)

As discussed, we derive the English word character from The Greek χαρακτηρ (charakter). For purposes of discussion we’ve used character and charakter interchangeably which is fine. We also agree “representation” or “image” is suitable for “χαρακτηρ”. However when Clear sees any type of adjective in front of χαρακτηρ he gets conversive.​

With that bit of backdrop, let’s analyze this. Clear says "χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ."


Another way to say "χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ" is:

1. χαρακτηρ means Χαρακτηρ or

2. χαρακτηρ means same Χαρακτηρ or

3. χαρακτηρ equals Χαρακτηρ or

4. χαρακτηρ is Χαρακτηρ or

5. χαρακτηρ means precisely Χαρακτηρ or

6. χαρακτηρ means exactly Χαρακτηρ​

In other words, Clear has been telling us χαρακτηρ means exactly Χαρακτηρ except when its "exact"!

We can do the same for “character”, “representation” or “image”.

Which simply gets us back to a point I raised with Clear earlier (post 818):

3. You haven’t defined the difference you see between “representation” and “exact representation”.

And post #901:

In other words, I think you're trying to make a distinction that has no difference.

Maybe it’s a case of adjectives (exact) vs. adverbs (exactly). But since Clear has raised the issue, the explanation rests with Clear. It's Clearly a difference only he sees.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste



1) MISCHARACTERIZATION OF MY POSITION IS NOT A WAY TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY

You are mischaracterizing my position as opposite of what it is. You said of me "...I never expected him to take exception to Alford’s lifelong work! His attack on the Greek Testament Exegetical Commentary is like a Christmas gift ..." (Oeste, in post #915)

I actually agree with Alford’s points regarding the word Character and I agree with the examples he gave.
In 2015 I argued FOR Alfords description in this forum.

However, Alford did not claim that the single word “Character” meant “exact Character” in your examples. (I am not sure why you thought he did)

Do you even read Koine?




2) NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR EXAMPLES IS NOT A WAY TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY

Your post #915 did not answer a single question I asked concerning the examples YOU gave readers. To make it simple, let's take it one question at a time.



DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE FROM ANY HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHERE "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER"?


Post #904 Clear said : “If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek.”

I gave you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.

In post #906 Oeste gave readers 10 more examples from Alfords Commentary where Χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτηρ and it did not mean “exact character”. (I assume you offered these cut and pastes by accident because you cannot read greek? - I don't know why...)


So, we now have almost 2 dozen examples from early literature where Character meant Character and it did not mean “exact character” unless the word “exact” was applied to the word “Character”.
Character did not mean “good” character, it did not mean “shady” character, it did not mean “honest” Character, it did not mean “dishonest” character unless the adjectives for “good”, “shady”, “honest” or “dishonest” were applied to the word “character”

Oeste, I can certainly change my position and am perfectly willing to do so, (as I said above, if you can find a single example from early Greek literature, I must yield to your claim...).

BUT, you will need to provide DATA and rational thought as to why I should change the greek definition of "Χαρακτηρ".
Rather than offering mischaracterizations and irrelevant comments, you need to answer the questions you are asked.

Oeste, can you even read Koine Greek?



Oestes example #1 : “Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) “

Clears question #1 was : “Delizsch’s remarks do not speak to nor even mention the specific meaning of the word “Character” in Koine greek. His comments have to do with the aura or “glory” surrounding God and it’s relationship to Gods character of Fire and light which he reveals.

Why did you offer these irrelevant comments to try to show “Character” meant “exact Character” in early greek literature? Can you explain?”




REGARDING THE “EXACTNESS” OF ANCIENT “IMPRESIONS”

Oestes example #2: “…“and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “

“... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die.


Clear commented : that both of these comments speak of engraved or stamped images. They do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”. You seem to assume that the “impression” of a die in 70-100 a.d. was somehow “exact”.

Below is a picture of a group of stamped coins (“widows mites”).

One can see with their own eyes the great variation in the Images, depth, clarity, centering, coin size, coin shape, etc.

Clear asked : “Why do you think this sort of variation and "unexactness" indicates the various Characters or coins are “exactly” like one another or that the bare word “Character” means “exact character”?

Rather than engaging in mischaracterizations or changing the subject or avoiding answering simple questions, can you answer these questions I asked in this post before we move on to my questions on your other "example" that are (so far), unanswered?




Clear
εινεσετζσεω

 

[Oeste]

Clear said to Oeste
"I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.

We’ve been through this multiple times before Clear. @Brian2 has pointed this out to you and so haven’t I. It suggests you haven’t read Paul carefully or the New Testament in general because you appear to miss the point Paul makes in its entirety.

I’m trying to put this in a way that might finally be understandable to you: NONE of the “dozen examples” you gave tell us match how Paul used Χαρακτηρ because NONE of the examples you gave were PERFECT.

If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.

(Sigh)

So if I can engage in a rather dubious exercise which DENIES Christ radiates the glory of God and is the EXPRESS image, the EXACT representation of his being, an exercise which REDUCES the impression, a PERFECT impression Paul METAPHORICALLY describes as made by DIVINE hands to the SAME LEVEL as impressions, the IMPERFECT impressions LITERALLY made by MORTAL men, which DENIGRATES Jesus by DEVALUING this perfect impression to a bag of coins, much like Judas DEVALUED Jesus to 30 pieces of silver, this very same verse which IMPRESSED upon Unitarians the deity of Christ as fully God and fully man at Nicea, then and ONLY then will you yield to my claim, the claim of the majority of various bible translations and their committees, the claim of biblical scholars and academia, the claim of well documented, reputable lexicons, commentaries, dictionaries, and the claim of the Catholics Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses and even the Mormon church?

All I can say to that is WOW!!!

You have OBVIOUSLY landed at the right place, the right forum, the right thread at exactly the right and just in nick of time.

So let me explain why I am so happy and willing to oblige:

Your entire question is based on a FALSE PREMISE, Clear. I was really hoping you would see this yourself. This whole idea of yours…that we can compare the Divine impression; an impression Paul declares is the perfect image of the Father with some other χαρακτηρ made by the hands of men, is simply contrary to scripture and anathema to the ENTIRE Christian church. Even your own church disagrees!

Quite simply, you’re not going to find an "EXPRESS image" much less an "image" that radiates the glory of God anywhere in Greek literature unless the image so expressed is Christ. It’s EXCLUSIVE to the biblical text and it’s specific to Paul (ALL the fullness of deity dwell in him Col 2:9). The verse in Hebrew itself says Jesus is HIGHER than the angels, so we’re not going to find anything else like him on earth. He is unique in bearing the exact impression of the Father and Paul describes him as “perfect”. In Christian theology, ONLY God is perfect. Even the Witnesses agree with this. I SHOWED ALL THIS IN POST 906. Here it is again:

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:10)

And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, (Hebrews 5:9)

For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:28)

So Paul, driven by the Spirit, speaks in an entirely different context than anyone else and as stated in post 906, different contexts will produce different meanings.

Also I explained, rather EXPLICITLY that UNLESS the other marks, engravings, impression were PERFECT there is NO comparison. You don’t compare the perfect with the imperfect, and you don’t look for perfection in imperfect things. Paul describes Jesus perfect just as the Father is perfect. So what we need to see from you is:

A. A perfect “original”

B. A metaphorical impression of this original

C. A declaration that the resulting metaphorical impression is perfect

D. A declaration that this impression is NOT exact.

E. Compelling evidence of A,B,C gives us a similar context to Paul and

F. C & D substantiates a viable claim.
​

If you want exact, it must be perfect. Any thing less than perfect is not going to be exact, and any evidence less than perfect is a smoke and mirror comparison, especially given the evidence against what so far has been an unsubstantiated theory.

In addition, I showed how a simple question can answer virtually every question you’ve asked:

So the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Was the χαρακτηρ in any of the examples given by @Clear described as "perfect"?

If the authors of these examples describe the χαρακτηρ as "perfect" then he has his answer.

It appears that you did not do that. That's okay, because we just went through the exercise.

Lastly, let’s not forget, I have the evidence and the weight of the evidence. I cannot find one scholar who disagrees with me on this, so the onus is NOT on our bibles, not on our commentaries, not on our dictionaries, not on our scholars, not on academia, not on Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses or even your fellow Mormons whose hermeneutics disagree with you, and certainly not on @Brian2 or @Oeste. It never was. Instead the onus is on you to properly, coherently, and faithfully build and evidence your claim. This cannot be shifted by asking questions that completely ignore the stated context of Hebrews. You’re going to need viable evidence and a lot of it.

Currently I have limited time on the forum so it takes a bit longer for me to respond. Hopefully that changes in a few weeks as I could write for hours on this subject and I still would not be through. I’ll get to as many as I can this evening but to be honest I’ve already answered them all.

So we’ll start off with your last post since I find it most egregious in terms of Christology, but then we’ll handle that prior post you claim I never answered which was actually answered as shown above. There may be some bounce back and forth between your last two posts. We'll see.

Continued...

 

[Oeste]

1) MISCHARACTERIZATION OF MY POSITION IS NOT A WAY TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY

Well that's something we can both agree on!

You are mischaracterizing my position as opposite of what it is. You said of me "...I never expected him to take exception to Alford’s lifelong work! His attack on the Greek Testament Exegetical Commentary is like a Christmas gift ..." (Oeste, in post #915)

Well that's exactly what you did. You're not trying to take my gift away now are you? I have no problem returning it to you if it's my argument that's defective.

I actually agree with Alford’s points regarding the word Character and I agree with the examples he gave.
In 2015 I argued FOR Alfords description in this forum.

However, Alford did not claim that the single word “Character” meant “exact Character” in your examples. (I am not sure why you thought he did)

Oh my goodness! ANOTHER topic to discuss with @Clear. I love both the assertion and the question. This will take some time to deconstruct and I doubt I'll have time this morning. It's already 1am and you know how Mondays are. It's a gift for later this week when I have more time.

Do you even read Koine?

That is too funny Clear! Don't you worry about me. I'm more worried about you.

BUT, you will need to provide DATA and rational thought as to why I should change the greek definition of "Χαρακτηρ".

WOW!

Not only has @Clear elevated himself to the office of "ARBITER of all things Greek", here on Religious Forums and apparently, WORLD WIDE (as Clear has amply demonstrated to himself, only he fully reads Greek, which allows him to proclaim our bibles and dictionaries, even though and where they agree across virtually every denomination in the Christianity, "in error") but he has taken ownership and control to the definition of "Χαρακτηρ"!

Who is Oeste to disagree with this?

Rather than offering mischaracterizations and irrelevant comments, you need to answer the questions you are asked.

A DIRECTIVE, uttered by our very own elevated Clear?

Clear has not answered my questions, he is free to pick and choose, but demands I answer his, and answer them immediately! I don't blame @Clear for this. Like many on this forum, people just expect Trinitarians to answer ALL questions forthwith and right away, whilst he and other non-Trinitarians get to browse, pick and choose.

But it doesn't stop there. Once a non-Trinitarian responds they have answered any and all questions asked, hence this understandable demand from Clear for immediate information now.

If I recall, way back when (50 or 60 posts ago?), I asked Clear to explain the perceived difference he sees between "exact representation " and "representation", "express image" and/or "very image", and "image". I've asked a few times since then. Have I received an answer?

No.

If I do not receive one I will give one. After all, as Trinitarians we're expected to have answers, all at the top of our head, no matter the time of morning (it's 2:42 am right now) and if we don't give answers, immediately, how can we expect anyone to righteously disagree? Seems only fair.

But that sounds suspiciously like a gripe, which tells me I'm already up waaay too late. That's when the gripes come out.

I gave you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.

Well, to be honest, you gave me zero instances of where any such usage can be applied to Hebrews. That is not my fault Clear.

In any event, I'll give a lot more detail, just not tonight.

In post #906 Oeste gave readers 10 more examples from Alfords Commentary where Χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτηρ and it did not mean “exact character”.

Uhmmm, that's not exactly true Clear (pun intended). If I had time l'd address this now. You seem excited for me to unwrap this now. I am very, very tired, so although it may be perceived as rude I'll have to save this for my next response.

(I assume you offered these cut and pastes by accident because you cannot read greek? - I don't know why...)

Don't worry about it Clear! You'll have plenty of time for that after I respond. (I assume you offered that last comment because you didn't quite understand exactly what you were reading?)

Great conversation btw. Worth the extra wake time, even if I am a bit grumpy.

Continued in perhaps a day or two....

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

The conversation about Koine Greek and the ancient meaning of the base word "Χαρακτηρ" ("Character") will be almost useless if you are simply going to refuse to answer direct questions, talk of Christmas gifts and your theology and engage in deflection. I am asking very, very simple questions about your claims.



CONCERNING OESTES EXAMPLES FROM ALFORDS COMMENTARY - WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE

Post #904 Clear said : “If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek.”

Oeste responded : "Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: " in post #906

Oeste, you then cut and pasted examples from Alford where YOUR examples demonstrate your claim is in error and NONE of your examples show the single greek word “Character” meant “exact Character” unless you added the adjective “exact” to it.

I asked you about each of the examples from Alford and you changed the subject.
When I pointed out that you did not answer my questions regarding Alfords examples (which YOU offered) which show even Alford did not believe in or offer the theory that “Character” meant “exact Character” in Koine Greek.



YOU gave the example from Alford which says “Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) “ (Oeste, post #906)

I pointed out that Delizsch’s remarks do not speak to nor even mention the specific meaning of the word “Character” in Koine greek.
His comments have to do with the aura or “glory” surrounding God and it’s relationship to Gods character of Fire and light which he reveals.
Can you tell us Why you offered these irrelevant comments to try to show “Character” meant “exact Character” in early greek literature?



REGARDING THE “EXACTNESS” OF ANCIENT “IMPRESIONS”


Oeste. YOU offered another example from Alford (which I agree with) as follows :


a) “and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “

b) “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. (Oeste, post 906)


Both of these comments speak of engraved or stamped images.
But, they do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.
You seem to assume that the “impression” of a die in 70-100 a.d. was somehow “exact”.

I gave you a picture of widows mites.

One can see with their own eyes the great variation in the Images, depth, clarity, centering, coin size, coin shape, etc. Why do you think this sort of variation and "unexactness" indicates the various Characters or coins are “exactly” like one another or that the bare word “Character” means “exact character”?


WHY WOULD YOU GIVE US EXAMPLES FROM ALFORDS COMMENTARY THAT UNDERMINED YOUR CLAIM IF YOU COULD EVEN READ THE GREEK EXAMPLES? (IT MADE NO SENSE)

Alfords examples showed that “Character” meant “Character” and in none of the example did “Character” mean “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”. It made no sense for you to give examples that demonstrated your own theory was incorrect if you had even a basic knowledge of koine Greek.

I asked you : “Oeste, can you even read Koine Greek?” (Clear, post #916)

Your answer was : “That is too funny Clear! Don't you worry about me.” (Oeste, post #918).

This was simply another deflection and did not answer the question you were asked.

Oeste. Do you even read koine Greek?


Clear
τωτζτωακειω

 

[Oeste]

The conversation about Koine Greek and the ancient meaning of the base word "Χαρακτηρ" ("Character") will be almost useless if you are simply going to refuse to answer direct questions, talk of Christmas gifts and your theology and engage in deflection. I am asking very, very simple questions about your claims.

I did not "refuse to answer direct questions" although you most certainly have refused to directly answer mine. I simply answered some previous questions you had asked.

I also stated I would be back in a day or two, and guess what?

I am back.

CONCERNING OESTES EXAMPLES FROM ALFORDS COMMENTARY - WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE

I like this title. I intend to use it later.

Post #904 Clear said : “If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek.”

Oeste responded : "Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: " in post #906

Yes, and it did. You read it, but I'm not quite sure you understood it. We're going to go over that tonight.

Oeste, you then cut and pasted examples from Alford where YOUR examples demonstrate your claim is in error and NONE of your examples show the single greek word “Character” meant “exact Character” unless you added the adjective “exact” to it.

This is where you erred Clear, and this is exactly why I chose this particular commentary. I chose it EXACTLY because it DID NOT have the word "exact", hoping that, by reading it, Alford's commentary might be more believable or credible to you and why the single Greek word "Charaktēr ". Unfortunately you were so locked, loaded, and focused on the word "exact" that you totally missed what Alford was saying.

I asked you about each of the examples from Alford and you changed the subject.

No I didn't. I said I would unwrap (talk) about it later because it was 2:30 plus in the morning and I have to get up and work in a few hours but I wanted to get a response or two in on the points your raised so you wouldn't think I was ignoring you which is apparently and exactly what you thought anyways.

Sheesh!

I told you I enjoy our conversations Clear. We are extremely fortunate to not only be able to freely engage in religious conversation, but to disagree. I could bump you off with a quick and terse comment as other posters are prone to do on this forum, but I don't think I've done that. In fact, there's no need for me to do that when, imo, you're already in a hole.

Any other poster would have simply posted Hebrews 1:3 from their favorite bible, like the NIV, and shown

3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,​

And when you objected that it and virtually every other bible was "in error" thy would have posted an explanation from their favorite lexicon or dictionary (I did both, courtesy of studylight.org). That would be point proven, at least for 99% of the population, but not for you. You would still object, but I seriously doubt anyone else would feel the need to go any further.

But tonight I'm going the extra mile to explain why this is so. Otherwise you'll continue on in error.

When I pointed out that you did not answer my questions regarding Alfords examples (which YOU offered) which show even Alford did not believe in or offer the theory that “Character” meant “exact Character” in Koine Greek.

Well, that's not exactly true Clear...

I'll explain this in my next post, using the title bar you gave above.