Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

The score still remains,

Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan = still more than 30.
Oeste, still = 0.

No Clear. What you actually mean is this:

Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan = still more than 30
The Mormon Church = 0​

You continuously couch your argument with the Mormon Church as "Oeste's claim". Here are a few examples from you that I have modified (in red) to show the real issue:

So, we are still left with many examples from Delitsch and from Milligan and from Leviticus and from Clement in ancient literature which undermines your [the Mormon Church's] claim but you have (so far) not given readers a single example from ancient Koine Literature where your [the Mormon Church's] claim holds true.

Do you [Does the Mormon Church] have a single example of ancient Koine literature where the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ means "exact Character" or "exact reproduction" or "exact representation" or "exact" anything?

IS THERE A SINGLE READER [MORMON] ON THE FORUM THAT EITHER BELIEVES OR SUPPORTS OR HAS ANY DATA TO BELIEVE OESTES [THE CHURCH'S] CLAIM?

This is how I see your argument Clear. You have a dispute with your church and their doctrine and you argue against them, vicariously, through me. You cannot call this your church's claim, so you call it repeatedly as "Oeste's claim".

If your church cannot sway you with good, sound counsel on why their translations is true, if the inspired translation of Joseph Smith, your church's latter day prophet cannot sway you, then I'm pretty sure no evidence I offer from scripture, the Catholic or Protestant church's, and certainly not anything offered from the Watchtower's web site will sway you either.

The important point I am trying to make is, I am not here to sway you. I've taken this time to explain the church's position, at least my church's position, on the matter. Your church happens to agree with mine, however I can't say with 100% certainty that they agree with my church (and literally almost every Christian church) for the exact same reasons.

This is why I asked you repeatedly to talk with someone in your church as to why they translated χαρακτὴp as "exact representation" just like we do. There is no evidence you have done this at all. I have thought about it and it occurs to me that you may be afraid to talk to someone in your church about this. After all, this is a translation Joseph Smith supports and it's a translation the King James bible supports.

I notice the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is also called the Inspired version and I can imagine it is difficult to argue openly in your church or even with members of your church against an inspired translation, especially one conducted by a founder. The late Bruce McConkie was a member of the First Council of Seventy of the LDS Church and then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He stated: "The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth" and "The JST is a special gift given of the Lord. It is one of the great evidences of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s divine calling." source

Obviously if your church considers the JST the product of a Divine calling, and the JST has not "restored" Hebrews 1:3 but starts out with a restoration of Hebrews 1:6, then it may not be wise to refute such an understanding directly. Thus, you continuously refer to "express impress" or "exact representation" as "Oeste's claim" rather than what it is: your Church's claim.

The public appeal (where you ask does anyone agree with Oeste when we already know everyone does) is what got me thinking. I began to suspect, however wrongly, that I was being used as a cats paw in an ongoing struggle between you and the Mormon church and its teaching. I'm not saying this is true, but it is what I strongly suspected, and your comment where you stated I was following my religious beliefs kind of sealed it. If a fellow Mormon would join in on your campaign and argue against me, you would have a recruit. The beauty of this is that everybody is arguing against Oeste, when in actuality, underneath the covers, they are actually arguing against a doctrine of their church.

How else am I to explain your continued insistence that this is "Oeste's claim"? The King James Version interprets Hebrews 1:3 as "express image", (one too many adjectives for you), and the Mormon Church has adopted the King James Version along with the JST.

However I would rather not be dragged into a dispute between you and your church as a cats paw. I think this is something you need to discuss with your church rather than thrash on my thread. Hebrews 1:3 is not even thread theme which simply helps you cloak your disagreement.

So I could continue to explain something you refuse to see, but I see no need to start repeating myself when it has been explained already, and especially not when I suspect you have an ulterior motive. I'm not delusional. I am under no pretense that I can open eyes that refuse to see. Let's face it, even if Christ dropped from the sky and landed with a thud in New York City, right in front of the United Nations Building and began to preach the God's honest truth there are still people who will not believe. There were such in Jesus' time, and there will are even more in ours.

I'm not saying you are one of them. I'm just saying you will not believe this particular point.

I've pointed out several times that Fairmormon.org,, BookOfMormonCentral.org, and ChurchOfJesusChrist.org. agree with me. This is in addition to just about every other lexicon, dictionary and concordance I can come across. Even the secular community supports "exact representation" as a valid translation of Hebrews 1:3.

Nobody claims "χαρακτήρ does not mean “exact” anything", that "χαρακτήρ meant χαρακτήρ", that "χαρακτήρ cannot mean “exact reproduction” without adding “additional content”, or that "χαρακτήρ cannot mean “exact impress” without adding an adjective".

These points have all been refuted along with your explanation that Milligan was referring to modern translators when he used "exact reproduction".

For all practical purposes our conversation has come to a close.

Please follow up with your church as to why they translated χαρακτήρ as "exact representation". As I stated earlier, it agrees with the Catholic and Protestant churches, but it may be for different reasons. I gave what I thought was one of them previously. I do not feel like looking back and finding it again (it's 2:15 am where I am). Let us know how you make out. We'll know if you've been successful when we see a change at BookOfMormonCentral.org:

My best wishes to you on your spiritual journey.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE MEANING OF THE LONE UNCONTEXTED KOINE WORD ΚΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (Eng “Character”)

Readers have been given about 30 examples from Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch, Milligan that demonstrate your claim is incorrect. You claim to read “ancient greek” “with comprehension”.
I asked you to give readers a single example from ancient Greek literature where your claim is correct or explain why Clement, Delitsch and Milligans examples did not demonstrate your claim was correct.

Your last few posts were more diversion and irrelevance.


CONTEXT MUST BE ADDED TO THE UNCONTEXTED GREEK WORD "ΚΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ" BEFORE IT MEANS MORE THAN "ΚΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ"
My claim is that the lone, uncontexted Koine Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” simply means “Χαρακτηρ” (eng some type of “Character”).
It doesn’t mean “sweet character” or “funny character” or “light character” or “dark character” or “good character” or “bad character” or “exact character” or “exact representation” or “exact reproduction” or “exact” anything UNLESS you add context to the word.

Additional context comes from outside of the word.
It can be a religious context (i.e. “a christian character”) , or a context of taste (“a sweet or bitter character”), or a context of shape (“a square or round character”) etc.
In all cases, the lone, base, word must have some sort of additional context before it can mean any of these things.

In English, without additional context, the lone, uncontexted word “Character” simply means Character.
It is the same in Koine Greek.


ADDING ADDITIONAL CONTEXT OR BIAS OR INFORMATION TO THE BASE WORD

Readers will note that your examples appeal to your religion as a reason that the word must mean "exact representation".
This is CONTEXT that is independent of the word itself which you are consciously or unconsciously applying to the word.
Your religion and it's context is NOT inherent to this ancient Greek word itself.
Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch and Milligan have already demonstrated this with almost 30 examples.

Even your appeal to the religious bias of Delitsch and Milligan are an attempt to add CONTEXT to the base, uncontexted word in an attempt to suggest they believe something different than their examples tell us. Even your reference to what you think my religious opinion on the subject is, is incorrect. I do not represent the mormon church position on this subject. (I've always thought it ironic that you kept making this specific mistake over and over and over.) For you, the discussion is religious. For me, it is historical.

However, when you try to add an external religious CONTEXT to the ancient koine Greek word to make it mean what you want it to mean, this is a tacit, unspoken admission that even you admit that you MUST add additional context to the base word before it means what you what it to mean to you.

Thank you .


Now that you have helped readers to see that CONTEXT must be added before the lone, uncontexted Greek word Καρακτηρ means anything other than Καρακτηρ, There is a VAST amount of early Greek literature for you to scour. (I think P Oxy ALONE has more than 10,000 references and there must be 100 times that in Papyral references alone.) I have offered (multiple times) to withdraw my claim if you can find a SINGLE example where the lone, uncontested Greek word for "character" means "exact representation" without asking some external context.

IF you cannot find a single example to support your claim then the score still remains
Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch and Milligan = 30 examples
Oeste = 0 examples

Do you have a SINGLE, solitary example from ancient Greek from the vast amount of early Greek literature where your claim holds true?


Clear
δρειτζδρειω

 

[Oeste]

Readers [Mormons] have been given about 30 examples from Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch, Milligan that demonstrate your [the Mormom Church's] claim is incorrect.

Why are still couching behind me? I have once again annotated your argument. I think it helps to make it more Clear.

This is not "Oeste's claim". I did not come up with it. It's the claim of your church. It's the claim of the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smiith. I am pretty sure they came up with it after independent analysis.

In my prior post I showed you where it states Joseph Smith's Version is INSPIRED.

I took you, held our readers hands, and showed how and where Joseph Smith RESTORED the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Did you not see? Did you close your eyes? Joseph Smith saw nothing to restore at Hebrews 1:3.

Yet you continuously refer to this a my claim rather than your church's claim.

Your church and mine are in agreement here Clear. Perhaps not for the same reason, but we are in agreement. Since I do not know specifically why your church agrees with mine, I need you to contact your church. Ask them the same questions you are asking me. Tell us what answers they give you. Perhaps they will tell you no one at the Mormon Church knew how to read koine Greek.

Perhaps they will tell you they were unaware of the 30 example from Leviticus, Clement Delitzsch, and Milligan that shows not only how wrong Mormons are, but how wrong the entire Christian church has been. They may even confess to you they got the whole idea from me, in which case your argument that this is "Oeste's claim" will be validated.

You claim to read “ancient greek” “with comprehension”.

I imagine there are a quite a few Mormon scholars from BYU or other academic institutions who make this claim.

Why not ask them? Perhaps some scholar from BYU has become aware of the 30 examples you discovered and is preparing a delegation to discuss this with the Mormon Church. Or perhaps, just maybe, they don't read Greek as well as you.

The more you keep calling this my claim the less likely your church will act to correct it. Perhaps they were unaware that "χαρακτήρ meant χαρακτήρ" when they translated this as "exact representation". I can certainly tell you every Greek primer I've come across failed to mention this rule of yours so you really can't blame them. You won't even find it on the Internet!!!

Just imagine the looks of admiration and gratitude as they banish the "added content" from their books, periodicals, web sites and bibles that has for so long contaminated the Mormon Church's publications.

Your last few posts were more diversion and irrelevance.

My last post concerned your church's rendering of Hebrews 1:3. Why would you consider this "irrelevant" to our conversation? Can you explain how and why Milligan would be relevant to our discussion while Joseph Smith is not?

Also, I told you I would not be used as a cats paw as you continuously attempt to argue vicariously against Mormon Church doctrine through me. I've already told you why the Christian Church translates χαρακτήρ as "exact representation". There is nothing more to discuss about this because this is how the Christian church properly translates it. It is silly to try and argue otherwise when all we have to do is open up a number of bibles, including the King James Version, and find out for ourselves.

As for your church you can speak with them. I would be very interested if they got the idea from me. If so, please let me know exactly when, where and what I posted that seems to have convinced them. I would be very interested in that.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

PERSONAL RELIGION IS IRRELEVANT TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT HISTORICAL VOCABULARY
You are confused. You seem to think we are having a religious debate.
We are not.


Our discussion regards ancient meaning of a single koine word "Χαρακτηρ"
your claim that the ancient Koine greek word Χαρακτηρ means "exact representation" to the ancient Greeks.
versus
my claim that the ancient lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ does not mean "exact" anything unless context is added to the word.

It is irrelevant what ANY religion of our age thinks the word means or should mean. It matters what the word meant to the ancients who used the word in their literature.
I do not know what the Mormons or the Catholics or the Baptists or the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Lutherans or any church thinks about this subject.
I simply don't know and don't care at all what any of them think the word means or should mean.



I do think that your admission that for you, it is an attempt to support your religious belief is insightful.
I understand the "stakes" for you if an admission of truth doesn't sit well with your religious beliefs.
I apologize if this has been uncomfortable and I did not intend to cause you discomfort in faith. That was never my intent.

However, you must understand that for me, I don't care one way or the other regarding the outcome.
It doesn't affect my religious belief in any way if you had been able to come up with a single bit of data to support your theory.

I've already told you that if you can find even a single example from ancient Koine Greek literature where your claim is actually true, I would withdraw my own claim as incorrect.


No matter what irrelevant subject we discuss, Oestes claim is still dead without at least one example where it is true.
You have, so far, been unable to give readers a single example from ancient greek where your claim is true.
No reader has stepped forward with a single example from ancient greek where your claim is true.
You have been given many examples from ancient greek that demonstrates your claim is incorrect from Leviticus, from Clement, from Delitsch and from Milligan, (even Alford).

In the face of multiple examples that show your claim is incorrect, I still do not see how you are going to create a viable and rational and logical historical claim.
If you cannot find a single example from ancient greek to support your claim, it remains dead.

The score is still
Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch and Milligan = 30
Oeste still = 0.

I honestly apologize if this issue is causing you any religious discomfort. Do you want me to stop?

Clear
δρειτζσεφυω

 

[Oeste]

You seem to think we are having a religious debate.
We are not.

No Clear. I do not believe we are having a religious debate.
I've explained this to you several times already:

There is no debate as to whether Χαρακτηρ can be translated as "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3.

None.

 

[Oeste]

PERSONAL RELIGION IS IRRELEVANT TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT HISTORICAL VOCABULARY

This is a rather bizarre statement. If only you were around to “explain” your “ irrelevant personal religion” theory to Martin Luther or John Calvin.

The word “Christian” is a historical word. It’s part of our historical vocabulary. It’s also a religious reference. It also define who I am as a person. It also defines the king of Church I belong to. It also defines not only my personal religion but the religion of over 2 billion people on the planet.

To claim that religion, personal or otherwise, is somehow “irrelevant” to “historical vocabulary” when the Church (and religion) is itself historical is nonsense.

For example, “Christian” identifies me as a follower of Christ. The same word identifies me now as it has defined other Christians throughout history. How is the word “Christian” “irrelevant” to “historical vocabulary”???

The same goes for the word “Jew”, “Muslim”, “Buddhist” , “resurrection”, “baptize” and thousands of other words. Language is flexible and fully able to retain religious and historical references. In fact, a lot of times it contains both.

The word Χαρακτηρ is part of church vocabulary. If you doubt this you can simply consult any complete lexicon or dictionary. The church is religious. The church is historical. Neither the church nor its religions are “irrelevant” to language and history.

This claim is refuted for the reasons stated above.

 

[Oeste]

Our discussion regards ancient meaning of a single koine word "Χαρακτηρ"
your claim that the ancient Koine greek word Χαρακτηρ means "exact representation" to the ancient Greeks.
versus
my claim that the ancient lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ does not mean "exact" anything unless context is added to the word.

You are confused.

You keep referring to this as “my” or “Oeste’s claim”. This is incomplete. It is incorrect. It is an improper attribution.

Oeste did not come up with the Church’s claim. I assure you, the Mormon Church, Watchtower, Catholics, Protestants and what have you came up with this all on their own.

Our discussion is not between Oeste and Clear. It is between Clear and the Church. There is no debate amongst the Church as to whether Χαρακτηρ can be rendered “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3. I am simply taking the time to explain this to you because I am the only poster willing to take the time to do it.

This is why I told you that you landed on the right thread!

So it is the Church’s claim that the ancient koine Greek word Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.

It is Clear’s claim that the ancient lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ does not mean “exact” anything at Hebrews 1:3 unless context is added to the word.

In short, Oeste is simply explaining the traditional, historical, Orthodox Church's correct and long accepted claim that Χαρακτηρ is fine and dandy at Hebrews 1:3. This claim just so happens to be supported by the Mormon Church, Jehovah Witnesses and even Christian Scientists.

It's a claim everybody's has right except for Clear so I am taking time out of a very busy schedule to patiently explain this.

 

[Oeste]

It is irrelevant what ANY religion of our age thinks the word means or should mean. It matters what the word meant to the ancients who used the word in their literature.
I do not know what the Mormons or the Catholics or the Baptists or the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Lutherans or any church thinks about this subject.
I simply don't know and don't care at all what any of them think the word means or should mean.

This is another bizarre statement!

You really had no idea what your own church had to say about Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3? Even after I posted a link to the LDS web site? And the link to Fair Mormon? And displaying the Inspired translation by Joseph Smith? And you had no idea what the Jehovah Witnesses had to say after stating the NWT erroneously translated Χαρακτηρ as "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3? And you had no idea what the Catholics thought after reading the Revised Standard Version for Catholics whose translation I posted on this thread? And you had no idea what Protestants thought about this after posting the translation from the King James bible?

And now you go beyond not knowing. Now you tell us you don't care at all what any of them think the word Χαρακτηρ means or should mean after attempting to debate what is essentially a non-debatable point with me for the last 400 posts????

How this is even possible? How is it believable??

In post 963 you told us the following about the RSV committed:

For example, they cooperated with Catholic desires for revisions that were necessary “to make it acceptable to Catholics”. However, protestants complained that the committee made few concessions to their demands to retain their traditional readings in support of their theologies.

So how is not knowing what they thought possible and why would you bother to post this comment if you don't care at all what Catholics and Protestants think?


In post 730, you stated the following to @Brian2:

The basic rule is, “FIRST learn Greek grammar. THEN argue Greek grammar.”​

Why was this applicable to Brian about Greek, but not applicable to you regarding Religions?

Shouldn't you have first learned what each religion said or thought about Hebrews 1:3 before attempting to argue this point with the entire Christian Church?

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

Oeste said : “No Clear. I do not believe we are having a religious debate.”
it is Good you both understand and admit this.
Since it is not a religious discussion, It is irrelevant what you or Delitsch or Milligan or I believe about religion when the actual discussion is ancient Greek vocabulary.

It IS relevant that we have many examples where your claim is in error and you have not been able to offer a single example in all of Greek literature where your example is correct.



Oeste said : I've explained this to you several times already: There is no debate as to whether Χαρακτηρ can be translated as "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3.
Yes, you have used repetition multiple times.

And I’ve explained that the single, lone, uncontexted word must have additional external context in order to be translated as you say if you want the translation to be correct.

ADDED CONTEXT IS NEEDED FOR ADDED MEANING OF A SINGLE BASE WORD
You CAN correctly translate “Character” as “Mickey Mouse”, or “Chocolate Cake” if you want.
BUT the English and the Greek word for Character must have additional context before it can mean any of these things.
THIS IS WHY you have been unable to find a single example supporting your claim in ancient Greek literature, or in modern Greek literature or in English literature or in German literature.

Even if you use the lone uncontexted English word “representation”.
You still must add the word “exact” or other external context before it means “exact representation”.


Readers can confirm this by simply trying to write “exact representation’ by using the single word “representation” without adding any additional context to the word.
Let me know if anyone can do it.
If you cannot do it, then you see the reason neither Oeste nor anyone else can find a single example in ancient Greek literature where anyone has been able to do this.




Oeste said : "This is a rather bizarre statement. If only you were around to “explain” your “ irrelevant personal religion” theory to Martin Luther or John Calvin.

This is another irrelevant point.

There is no need to “explain personal religion” to Luther or Calvin to talk simple Koine vocabulary.
Luther uses “ebenbild” for the Greek word Character in Hebrews 1:3.
A simple, uneducated, atheist farmer could explain this to Luther and luther would understand without reference to religion.
Luther was smart enough to understand how two chicken eggs are “ebenbilds” yet not “exact” ebenbilds without referring to religion.
Religion is irrelevant to being able to explain this to Luther.





Oeste said : "Oeste did not come up with the Church’s claim

This is is another irrelevant point since I am speaking of Oestes claim.
What your modern church or you believe is another irrelevant diversion.

It is not a religious discussion, remember?
What is relevant is that we have seen many examples where your claim is in error and you have not been able to find a single example in all of Greek literature where your example is correct.



Now you tell us you don't care at all what any of them think the word Χαρακτηρ means or should mean after attempting to debate what is essentially a non-debatable point with me for the last 400 posts????

Yes. It is simply irrelevant to ancient historical vocabulary what a modern persons or churches belief is or if the person is an atheist.

The ancient meaning and usage of a word does not and will not change regardless of modern beliefs or lack of religious belief. History simply doesn’t care what you believe nowadays.

I think it is unusual that you have been trying to debate what you call “a non debatable point” without having a single example from early Greek literature to support your claim in the face of multiple examples showing your claim is in error.



Oeste said : "The basic rule is, “FIRST learn Greek grammar. THEN argue Greek grammar.
Why was this applicable to Brian about Greek, but not applicable to you regarding Religions?"

I am not arguing religion. I am arguing ancient greek vocabulary.
If one is arguing religion, a similar rule would be “FIRST learn religion. THEN argue religion.”

This is another illogical and irrelevant point and waste of readers time.
Do you have a single example from ancient greek literature where your claim is true?


A CLAIM THAT HAS EXAMPLES THAT SHOW IT IS INCORRECT BUT NO EXAMPLES TO SHOW IT IS CORRECT IS A DEAD CLAIM
Oeste, we have seen many examples from early Greek literature where your claim is incorrect.
Do you have a single example from early Greek literature where your claim is true?

Your multiple attempts to add religious context are additional evidence that demonstrate that context MUST be added to the lone, uncontexted word before it means what you want it to mean.
Thank you

If you do not have a single example from early Greek literature where your claim is true, then your claim remains a dead claim.

It still seems irrational to me to create a claim or a theory that has no single example of evidence where it is true yet has evidence that it is not true.


Clear
δρτωτζεισιω

 

[Oeste]

Clear states:

It is irrelevant what ANY religion of our age thinks the word means or should mean. It matters what the word meant to the ancients who used the word in their literature.
I do not know what the Mormons or the Catholics or the Baptists or the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Lutherans or any church thinks about this subject.
I simply don't know and don't care at all what any of them think the word means or should mean.

Really? Let's take your quote above and run with it. But instead of simply addressing this to Oeste, let's have you address the entire Church. I think this is appropriate, since your argument is actually with the Church and not with me. I simply support the Church's claim; I don't claim to be the source of the claim. Proper attribution is essential.

Ready? Here's how I see your argument with the Church, delivered openly, with no "Oeste's claim" attached to it to masquerade or hide behind.

Clear approaches the podium but stops to engage a parishioner holding a bible.

Clear: May I borrow your bible please?
​

The Parishioner nods his head quickly and with this finishes his ascent to the podium, signaling his intent to begin the service.

Clear: May I have your attention please?
​

The background noise abates as the Church settles down.

Clear (waving a bible): "I don’t know what you think about the words in this bible and I don’t care, because whatever ANY religion of our age thinks about it is irrelevant. What matters is what the words meant to the ancients in their literature."
​

The church goers are stunned for a moment by Clear’s revelation to the church. At first they appeared bewildered and puzzled, but after a moment faint smiles begin to appear from one face to the next. Slowly they begin to nod, timidly then ever more vigorously to themselves. Someone claps, then another, and in the span of a few moments the entire congregation erupts into thunderous applause and cheers. Clear waits for the applause to die down a bit before proceeding with his sermon.

Clear: So do we know what the church says about the words in our bible?

Church: “NO!”

Clear: And do we care what the church says about the words in our bible?

Church: “NO!”

Clear: And why do we not know or care?

Church: Because it only matters what the words meant to the ancients!

Clear: And how do we know these words only matter to the ancients?

Church: Because they’re the ones that used these words in their literature!​

I think you would deliver quite a sermon with your commentary Clear. Very unique, possibly the very first of its kind, which is saying a lot given the Church's long and storied battle against heresy.

I do think that your admission that for you, it is an attempt to support your religious belief is insightful.

Again, this is not only my religious belief but the belief of the entire Christian Church, even your own. There is simply no dispute about whether Χαρακτηρ can be rendered “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.

None.

I understand the "stakes" for you if an admission of truth doesn't sit well with your religious beliefs.

I've just demonstrated how well your irreligious "truth" might sit with the Church. In truth I don't think it would sit well. In any event, the burden of proof is on you, not the church. The entire church already agrees and has consensus. I am simply explaining what is already a broad and universal (or near universal) belief.

Attempting to shift the burden back to the Church with etymological word fallacies is not going to change the belief of 2.6 billion believers. Attempting to couch this as a debate between me and you when its actually a debate between you and your church does not help move the needle either.

 

[Oeste]

Clear states:

CONTEXT MUST BE ADDED TO THE UNCONTEXTED GREEK WORD "ΚΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ" BEFORE IT MEANS MORE THAN "ΚΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ"
My claim is that the lone, uncontexted Koine Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” simply means “Χαρακτηρ” (eng some type of “Character”).
It doesn’t mean “sweet character” or “funny character” or “light character” or “dark character” or “good character” or “bad character” or “exact character” or “exact representation” or “exact reproduction” or “exact” anything UNLESS you add context to the word

Additional context comes from outside of the word.

ADDED CONTEXT IS NEEDED FOR ADDED MEANING OF A SINGLE BASE WORD
You CAN correctly translate “Character” as “Mickey Mouse”, or “Chocolate Cake” if you want.

So let's run with Clear's assertions. Using Clear's rules we'll construct our own dictionary definition for Χαρακτηρ (character or charaktḗr ):

χαρακτὴρ (char•ac•ter)

Noun

1. Character

Verb (archaic)

1. Character

With added context

1. Sweet, funny, light, dark, good, bad, exact, Mickey Mouse, Chocolate Cake or virtually anything you can imagine + Character​

This may be what Clear sees when he turns the pages of his Greek Dictionary or Lexicon, but I don't think this is what anyone else sees.

MORE PROBLEMS

Here's how everyone else's dictionary or lexicon might display χαρακτὴp:

χαρακτήρ charaktḗr

gen. charaktḗros, masc. noun from charássō (n.f., see cháragma [5480]), to carve.

The –tḗr suffix signifies agency, hence the word originally denoted an engraver or engraving tool. Later it meant the impression itself, usually something engraven, cut in, or stamped, a character, letter, mark, sign. This impression with its particular features was considered as the exact representation of the object whose image it bore. In the NT, representation, express image. Occurs only in Heb. 1:3 where it is translated “express image,” referring to Jesus Christ. Here He is described as the charaktḗr tḗs hupostáseōs autoú (tḗs [3588], the [gen. fem.]; hupostáseōs [5287], essence [gen.]; autoú [846], he [gen. masc.]), “the exact image of His [God’s] essence” (a.t.). Whatever the divine essence is, Jesus is said to be its perfect expression. The writer of Hebrews thus sets forth a high Christology affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.

Syn.: eikṓn (1504), image; homoíōsis (3669), likeness; homoíōma (3667), likeness.

Source: Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
​

As stated previously, there is no debate that "exact representation" is a valid and perfectly legitimate translation of χαρακτὴρ (character).

None.

If Clear plans to continue this discussion he needs to produce a reputable, published and peered reviewed theologian or Church who has analyzed not only Hebrews 1:3 and the New Testament, but the available papyri and pottery shards that have been found mainly in an Egyptian trash heaps. This person or church should be able to state, based on the available evidence, that they disagree with the Church and its established consensus on χαρακτὴρ.

They should also be able to state unequivocally that Clear's language rules ("χαρακτὴρ meant χαρακτὴρ" unless you add an adjective or other context and/or "χαρακτὴρ does not mean "exact" anything") are correct.

Do not look for these rules in your Greek Primer. You will not find them. We only have Clear's say-so but he has assured us his rules are correct.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

You misrepresent my position.

I claim the lone, uncontexted ancient Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” (eng “Character”) does not have any meaning beyond its base meaning without adding context.
It does not mean “exact Character” unless you add context to the lone, base word "Character".
For example, you can add the adjective “exact” to the word “Character” and then it becomes “exact Character”.
You can also apply external context by some other manner.

Oeste said : "Do not look for these rules in your Greek Primer. You will not find them. We only have Clear's say-so but he has assured us his rules are correct." (Oeste in post 1011)
This is incorrect and it is bad advice not to check a Greek Primer..
I suggest you look in any primer whether Greek OR English or French or Spanish or German, etc. You will find these rules apply.

1) EXAMPLES OF ADDING CONTEXT

b) ADDING CONTEXT BY USING AN ADJECTIVE TO A LONE, BASE, WORD
The dictionary meaning of an adjective is : A word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.
A writing site describes this process : “ An adjective modifies a noun; that is, it provides more detail about a noun. This can be anything from color to size to temperature to personality. Adjectives usually occur just before the nouns they modify. In the following examples, adjectives are in bold, while the nouns they modify are in italics (the big bear):

In your case, an addition word “exact” would modify the noun “representation” to change the meaning of the lone, uncontexted word “representation” to now mean “exact representation”. This is how it works in ancient Koine Greek as well. It is a simple process.

We have no evidence that such rules of language were any different in ancient Koine Greek at the time the New Testament was written.

C) ADDING CONTEXT THROUGH PERSONAL ASSUMPTION OR BIAS
Hebrews was most likely written in the 1st century and the earliest codices are in ancient Koine Greek
While it is correct that 1500 years later, some translators of the Greek added personal religious context to the word in Hebrews 1:3 by translating it as “exact representation” and others did not add this context and some added other context, the translators that did not add their own bias were correct not to add bias and the translators that added their personal religious bias were incorrect to add personal context. This doesn't mean the various translators religions were right or wrong, merely that the translation that was inappropriately affected by bias was incorrect.

For example, your source Zodhiates S. (2000) makes this distinction in pointing out that Hebrews 1:3 is translated “express image” and not “exact image” or “exact representation” or “exact” anything. Zodhiates is correct. Luther and others did not translate it as an impression, but as an image and not an impression. You may argue that the translators that rendered it as an image rendered by an impression or expression were incorrect, but to do so, you will still have to return to the original Greek word and it’s original Greek meaning.


To insist that what the word meant to individuals 1500 years after the text was written and in a different language than the original text is the same as the historical meaning 1500 years earlier is an entymological fallacy.

Remember, your rule regarding an entymological fallacy : "It holds that it’s a fallacy to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is nothing to suggest that present day meanings are similar to ancient meetings. Do you understand what fallacy means?" (Oeste post #996)

You need to read some of the things you write. Some of them are correct.

So, instead of telling us what the word means to you, or to your religious movement, or to your pastor, or to your church, you should be able to give us an example of what the word actually meant to the ancient Greeks who used the word.in THEIR literature.



2) WE HAVE SEEN MANY EXAMPLES ROM ANCIENT KOINE GREEK ALREADY. ALL OF THEM (SO FAR), DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM IS INCORRECT.
Readers have been given many, many examples from Leviticus in the O.T., Clement of the New Testament, Delitsch who is an expert in ancient Greek, and from Milligan who is also an expert in ancient Greek and it’s literature that actually uses the word in it’s many texts. All of these so far, undermine your claim.

You have been unable to give readers a single example from ancient Greek where your claim is true. Even this latest example from Zodhaites (of 2000 a.d.) doesn’t support your claim with an example, and the single example he gives in English doesn’t support your claim.


So, the Score remains

Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch, Milligan = 30

Oeste = 0

Your claim remains a dead, claim without a single example to support it, unless you can provide a single example from early Greek literature where your claim holds true. Just a single example is all that is needed.

I will accept an example from any ancient Koine document and from any reader on the forum.



Clear
δρτωεινετωω

 

[Oeste]

I claim the lone, uncontexted ancient Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” (eng “Character”) does not have any meaning beyond its base meaning without adding context.

I think we can agree on this.

It does not mean “exact Character” unless you add context to the lone, base word "Character".

This is where we disagree.

Χαρακτηρ can mean “image”, “impress”, “representation”, “engravers tool”, “express image”, “exact impress”, “exact representation” or a number of other definitions.

For example, you can add the adjective “exact” to the word “Character” and then it becomes “exact Character”.

Only if we presume your underlying premise to be correct. Since it can also mean “exact character” adding “exact” gives us “exact-exact character” which of course would be incorrect.

Oeste said : "Do not look for these rules in your Greek Primer. You will not find them. We only have Clear's say-so but he has assured us his rules are correct." (Oeste in post 1011)
This is incorrect and it is bad advice not to check a Greek Primer..
I suggest you look in any primer whether Greek OR English or French or Spanish or German, etc. You will find these rules apply.

I did, and did not find them in any language, anywhere, at anytime, at anyplace in any Greek Primer.

The specific language rules I am looking for are the ones you have alleged:

1. Χαρακτηρ does not mean "exact Character" unless you add context to the base word "Character"
2. χαρακτὴρ meant χαρακτὴρ" unless you add an adjective or other context
3. χαρακτὴρ does not mean "exact" anything​

In your case, an addition word “exact” would modify the noun “representation” to change the meaning of the lone, uncontexted word “representation” to now mean “exact representation”. This is how it works in ancient Koine Greek as well. It is a simple process.

No, it wouldn't because I am not "adding" the word "exact".
No, because the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ already means “exact representation or reproduction”. Here it is again:

Milligan and Moulton translate "Χαρακτηρ" as 'exact reproduction". It there, underlined in red and as clear as day. There is no getting up, down, over, under, or around this Clear.
All 3 of your rules were refuted with this demonstration. This was pointed out in post 984.

Readers
will notice that Milligan & Moulton give several definitions and several illustrations as glosses. Let’s look at what the word definition means:

A definition is a statement of the “exact meaning” of a word. Milligan & Moulton give

1. “engraver’s tool” as an exact meaning of Χαρακτηρ

2. “impress” as an exact meaning of Χαρακτηρ

3. “mark” as an exact meaning of Χαρακτηρ

4. “exact reproduction” as an exact meaning of Χαρακτηρ​

None of these definitions define Χαρακτηρ more or less than the other. They are all correct.



Previously you attempted to show that the "exact reproduction" translation shown here was a modern translation and Milligan & Moulton were simply showing "exact reproduction" as an incorrect translation. This was refuted in prior posts 992 and 993:

While it is correct that 1500 years later, some translators of the Greek added personal religious context to the word in Hebrews 1:3 by translating it as “exact representation” and others did not add this context and some added other context, the translators that did not add their own bias were correct not to add bias and the translators that added their personal religious bias were incorrect to add personal context. This doesn't mean the various translators religions were right or wrong, merely that the translation that was inappropriately affected by bias was incorrect.

Who determined or determines this "bias" and where is the bias if every church agrees that Χαρακτηρ can be properly translated as "exact representation"? No one is claiming it must always be translated that way, just that it can be translated that way. Χαρακτηρ has been translated multiple ways at Hebrews 1:3, all without raising an eyebrow.

For example, your source Zodhiates S. (2000) makes this distinction in pointing out that Hebrews 1:3 is translated “express image” and not “exact image” or “exact representation” or “exact” anything.

No, you are incorrect. Zodhiates is not making such a distinction. He points out Χαρακτηρ: “… can be considered as the "exact representation” and later as "exact image". Each is appropriate:

The –tḗr suffix signifies agency, hence the word originally denoted an engraver or engraving tool. Later it meant the impression itself, usually something engraven, cut in, or stamped, a character, letter, mark, sign. This impression with its particular features was considered as the exact representation of the object whose image it bore. In the NT, representation, express image. Occurs only in Heb. 1:3 where it is translated “express image,” referring to Jesus Christ. Here He is described as the charaktḗr tḗs hupostáseōs autoú (tḗs [3588], the [gen. fem.]; hupostáseōs [5287], essence [gen.]; autoú [846], he [gen. masc.]), “the exact image of His [God’s] essence” (a.t.). Whatever the divine essence is, Jesus is said to be its perfect expression. The writer of Hebrews thus sets forth a high Christology affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.​

Zodhiates is correct.

Excellent Clear!

I am glad we agree.

1. The impression with its particular features was considered as the EXACT REPRESENTATION just as Zodhiates states and to which you agree.

2. He is described as the EXACT IMAGE of His [God's] essence at Hebrews 1:3 just as Zodhiates states and to which you agree.​

It's been a long road, but we finally arrived at an agreeable disposition.

Take care and I wish you the best.

Oeste

 

[Clear]

Clear said : "I claim the lone, uncontexted ancient Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” (eng “Character”) does not have any meaning beyond its base meaning without adding context."
Oeste replied : "I think we can agree on this."
Good.


Oeste said : “No, you are incorrect. Zodhiates is not making such a distinction. He points out Χαρακτηρ: “… can be considered as the "exact representation” and later as "exact image". Each is appropriate:

In what era and in what historical context?


Remember, your own rule of entymological fallacy. You pointed out it was "…a fallacy to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is nothing to suggest that present day meanings are similar to ancient meetings." (Oeste post #996)


1) IT IS A FALLACY TO CLAIM A WORD FROM A LATER ERA SHOULD NECESSARILY BE SIMILAR TO IT'S HISTORICAL MEANING IN AN EARLIER ERA
We have no ancient greek biblical texts that read “exact representation”, they all use only the base word “Χαρακτηρ” and none of the early Greek literature has “exact representation for this word. None.

The same is true of the earliest Latin versions of the N.T. from the ancient eras (before late 4th century). The vulgate reads “qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae…” At Hebrews 1:3, “the figure of his substance…”.
It is not "exact figure" because there is no "exact" implied in the original in the ancient latin word for figure (lat. "figura"). It is the same in the greek versions.

This is what the ancient texts say.

You, however, are representing the usage from later eras in a different language than either Greek or latin. To insist your more modern meaning is the meaning of the ancients is a fallacy.

This is also the distinction Milligan made.
Milligan pointed out that the word has been used as “exact representation” in later eras.
His examples, conversely, show what the word actually meant anciently.


Zodiates is making the same distinction as Milligan makes.
Zodiates describes what the word has been used as in the later eras, considered to mean in the later eras and translated as in the later eras.
Zodiates says “This impression with its particular features was considered as the exact representation of the object whose image it bore.”
Who considered it the “exact representation?”
In what time period did it come to be considered thusly?
In what context was it considered thusly?”

Zodiates himself, then compares this first statement with another that comes in the very next sentence “In the NT, representation, express image.” This is what it meant in the New Testament according to Zodiates.

I agree with Zodiates when he says In the New testament, it meant, "representation, express image”.
Notice Zodiates does NOT say, In the New testament it meant "exact representation or exact image". It doesn't work to cherry pick a sentence out of context.

As YOU pointed out, it is a fallacy to suggest your meaning from later eras is what the word meant in the most ancient and most original time periods.

Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact representation" anciently.

This is the reason we have many examples in ancient greek that show your claim is incorrect, but so far, you have not found a single example in any ancient greek to demonstrate that your claim is correct.

Without at least one example from any of the vast, vast, early Greek literature that supports your claim, your claim remains a dead claim.


Clear
δρτωδρφυσιω

 

[Oeste]

1) IT IS A FALLACY TO CLAIM A WORD FROM A LATER ERA SHOULD NECESSARILY BE SIMILAR TO IT'S HISTORICAL MEANING IN AN EARLIER ERA

That’s correct Clear! It’s good to see you’re catching on. Scripture interprets scripture. It’s Paul’s usage that determines this and not pagan Greek artifacts.

We have no ancient greek biblical texts that read “exact representation”, they all use only the base word “Χαρακτηρ” and none of the early Greek literature has “exact representation for this word. None.

Well we know that is nonsense from the git-go.

Express Image:

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 1:3 (NKJV) who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 1:3 (TMB) who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 1:3 (WBT) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself made purification of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

Exact Image/Imprint:

Hebrews 1:3 (ESV) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 1:3 (NRS) He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Yehudim in Moshiach 1:3 (OJB) Who being the Shechinah zohar (brilliance) of Hashem and the exact impress and demut of Hashem’s essential nature, being, and reality, and sustaining everything by his Dvar HaKo’ach, after he made tihur (purification) of chatta’im (sins), sat down at LIMIN ("the right hand" TEHILLIM 110:1) of the Majesty on High.​

Exact Representation:

Hebrews 1:3 (WNT) He brightly reflects God's glory and is the exact representation of His being, and upholds the universe by His all-powerful word. After securing man's purification from sin He took His seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Hebrews 1:3 (NAS) And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,​

These are good reputable translations based on good reputable translators who base their translations on reputable manuscripts. No one but you claims they're incorrect. Perhaps when you actually produce your peer reviewed study and research this will change?

The same is true of the earliest Latin versions of the N.T. from the ancient eras (before late 4th century). The vulgate reads “qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae…” At Hebrews 1:3, “the figure of his substance…”.
It is not "exact figure" because there is no "exact" implied in the original in the ancient latin word for figure (lat. "figura"). It is the same in the greek versions.

Unfortunately Paul did not write to the Hebrews in Latin.

You, however, are representing the usage from later eras in a different language than either Greek or latin. To insist your more modern meaning is the meaning of the ancients is a fallacy.

Clear, you just tried to convince us that "Χαρακτηρ" can’t mean “exact representation” from the Latin Vulgate, and now you rail against translations from a later era? You are kidding us, right?

 

[Oeste]

This is also the distinction Milligan made.
Milligan pointed out that the word has been used as “exact representation” in later eras.
His examples, conversely, show what the word actually meant anciently.

Clear, we went through this previously.

When Milligan gives us a modern definition he uses the abbreviation “MGr”.

That's the rule. It an actual rule that Milligan and Moulton make.

So when we let these authors speak for themselves they will tell us when they're making an argument or definition using Modern Greek.

Let Milligan speak for himself. There is no need for you to speak for him.

When we look at the definition for Χαρακτηρ we find NO, NADA, ZIP mention of "MGr" (modern Greek)

I went through this in painstaking detail in post #993.

Your claim was refuted and now its refuted again.

 

[Oeste]

Zodiates is making the same distinction as Milligan makes.

Yes, he translates Χαρακτηρ as "Exact reproduction" at Hebrews 1:3. This is distinctly different from how Χαρακτηρ was used elsewhere.

It's to be expected since its a reference to Christ.

Zodiates describes what the word has been used as in the later eras, considered to mean in the later eras and translated as in the later eras.

I hope you're not going to try and convince us this "later era" was Modern Greek.

Zodiates says “This impression with its particular features was considered as the exact representation of the object whose image it bore.”

Correct! That’s the way ancient Greeks considered it.

Who considered it the “exact representation?”
In what time period did it come to be considered thusly?
In what context was it considered thusly?”

I'm glad you asked.

If you notice and pay close attention to the title he gives the whole thing away. It's a word study of the NEW TESTAMENT so right away we know it's words used by New Testament authors.

So it will be the words of the New Testament Authors that are discussed. This is not a book on how Modern Translators wrongly or rightly interpret the New Testament.

Zodhiates tells us when we let him speak. The “Who” is the apostle Paul. The “time period” is the 1st Century AD. The “context” is Hebrews 1:3. The reference, which you did not ask for, is to Christ.

It is important to let Zodhiates speak for himself on this matter.

Zodiates himself, then compares this first statement with another that comes in the very next sentence “In the NT, representation, express image.” This is what it meant in the New Testament according to Zodiates.

I agree with Zodiates when he says In the New testament, it meant, "representation, express image”.

Uhmmm, no you don't agree with Zodhiates at all. Here's what you agree with:

For example, the single word Χαρακτηρ (Character) did not mean "Χαρακτηρασ ακριβας" (exact Character) unless one added the adjective (ακριβας) "exact".

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"?

“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.

In the words “express image”, the word “express” is an adjective describing the type of image (noun). Zodhiates’s translation is impossible according to your own rules Clear, yet you agree with him.

I think you should decide what language rules you’re going to adhere to. This going back and forth is confusing everyone.

Notice Zodiates does NOT say, In the New testament it meant "exact representation or exact image". It doesn't work to cherry pick a sentence out of context.

He is the “express image” or the “exact image”. Either is appropriate. It didn’t work to put words into Mulligan’s mouth and it doesn’t work with Zodhiates either.

Later it meant the impression itself, usually something engraven, cut in, or stamped, a character, letter, mark, sign. This impression with its particular features was considered as the exact representation of the object whose image it bore. In the NT, representation, express image. Occurs only in Heb. 1:3 where it is translated “express image,” referring to Jesus Christ. Here He is described as the charaktḗr tḗs hupostáseōs autoú (tḗs [3588], the [gen. fem.]; hupostáseōs [5287], essence [gen.]; autoú [846], he [gen. masc.]), “the exact image of His [God’s] essence” (a.t.). Whatever the divine essence is, Jesus is said to be its perfect expression. The writer of Hebrews thus sets forth a high Christology affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.​

The entire context here is ancient Greece and Hebrews 1:3 . He concludes by stating the writer of Hebrews sets forth a high Christology affirming the deity of Christ. This separates Christ from the prophets or representatives that came before. He is God.

Milligan and Moulton translate "Χαρακτηρ" as 'exact reproduction". It’s there, I've circled and even underlined it in red so that it would be clear as day. Zodhiates says the same. There is no getting up, down, over, under, or around this.

This is the reason we have many examples in ancient greek that show your claim is incorrect, but so far, you have not found a single example in any ancient greek to demonstrate that your claim is correct.

I’m sure you also have even more examples in ancient Greek that show God’s name was actually Zeus and our modern translators have it all wrong. The problem is we are Christians, not pagans, so while we may think what the pagans believe is interesting, we’re not about to change our bibles based on their say-so any more than they’ll ever be changed based on yours.

This is the reason we don’t rush to statues and ostraca to interpret scripture.

You really should have stuck with your Church’s translation on this rather than trying to roll out your own. Scripture interprets scripture, not pagan ostraca and papyri. They are helpful but they’re the last place to go to for translational clarity.

You claim(s) are refuted. The church's translation at Hebrews 1:3 is upheld.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


1) MISREPRESENTING MILLIGAN (AND DELITSCH, AND ZODHIATES)

Clear said : “Milligan pointed out that the word has been used as “exact representation” in later eras.
His examples, conversely, show what the word actually meant anciently.”
Oeste said : “Clear, we went through this previously.”

Yes we did. It makes no sense for you to repeatedly misrepresent Delitsch, or Milligan and now Zodhiates.

You attempted to use Milligans english description that some modern translators used “exact representation” but following this Milligan gave us
multiple examples to show what the word actually meant to the ancient greeks.

Read the Greek examples Milligan gave us.
They all demonstrate your claim is incorrect.

You cannot take Milligan out of context to prove your point with educated readers.
You have been unable to give us even a single example from ancient Greek to show Milligans point is incorrect.
Your claim remains dead.


2) MISREPRESENTING ZODHIATES

Oeste claimed : "Yes, he translates Χαρακτηρ as "Exact reproduction" at Hebrews 1:3."

Misrepresenting Zodiates will not work.
Zodhiates actual quote is that the word Καρακτηρ “Occurs only in Heb. 1:3 where it is translated “express image,” referring to Jesus Christ.” (bold is mine)
Zodhiates claim that it is translated "Express image" in the New Testament is NOT "exact reproduction".
Zodhiates is correct in this claim.
Your claim remains dead.



3) MISREPRESENTING ANCIENT GREEKS

Oeste said : "That’s the way ancient Greeks considered it."

This is yet another bizarre claim.
You claim to read Greek "with comprehension" but have never been able to provide a speck of evidence for your claim from the vast greek literature.

Readers have already seen multiple examples from ancient Greek from O.T. Leviticus, from N.T. Clement, from Delitsch and from Milligan as evidence your claim is wrong.
Since, you have no evidence from ancient Greek where your claim is correct.
Your claim remains dead.


4) YOUR CLAIM WITHOUT APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE IS DEAD
If the only type of support you can produce for your claim is to misrepresent individuals and their statements, then your theory was doomed from the beginning.
If you (or any other forum reader) can find a single speck of evidence from ancient Greek to support your claim, THEN we can consider your claim.
Otherwise, your claim remains dead.


Clear
δρτωσεειφυω

 

[Clear]

EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING OESTES CLAIM IS INCORRECT

You claim to read Greek “with comprehension”. Here are a few examples which demonstrate your claim is incorrect. :

EXAMPLES FROM MILLIGAN

In OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) a group remarks Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης.
The example demonstrates the word did not refer to an “exact” representation.

In Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says: “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα”.
There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ.

In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text says: “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
No exactness is implied.

In P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) the text reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.”
The text could have read “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” but it did not and thus, it does not mean “exact representation”.

In Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…”
There is no “exact representation” here in the word.

The New Testament Revelations text uses a form of the word saying :
ο εχων το χαραγμα η το ονομα του θηριου
τους εχοντας το χαραγμα του ξηριου
τους λαβοντας το χαραγμα του ξηριου

Here again, no exactness is implied. In fact Milligan remarks that “The exact meaning of the figure has been much discussed.”

In CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) the text reads : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “
There is no implication of an “exact representation”.

The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
There is no meaning of “exact representation”

In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) the text refers to a “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν”
It is obviously not used as “exact representation” in this text.

In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…”
Here again, the word does not mean “exact representation”.

In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) the text speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” ,
especially if this an Israeli item, it is representation, but not exact representation.

In P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) the text says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι”
The word does not imply exact representation.

In P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) the text says Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.
Obviously, the text does not imply an exact representation.

In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) the son says “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
Again, this is an example were the word did not mean exact representation.


If we look at the dates of the examples, we can see that from 300 b.c. to peri c.e. era, the word did not mean “exact representation”.
In the texts from 1 a.d. to the Christian era, the word did not mean “exact representation”.
Texts from early Christian eras to the early centuries, the word did not mean “exact representation”.



EXAMPLES FROM DELITZSCH DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM IS INCORRECT

YOU offered Delizsch’s remarks and his first comments in German do not support your claim (they were simply irrelevant)


Delitzsch says : “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. “ and “... 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 comments speak of engraved or stamped images. They do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.

Delitzsch offers the example from “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,
This demonstrates your claim is incorrect. There is no “exact representation” mean by Χαρακτηρ here.

Delitzsch offers “ 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.
This demonstrates your claim is incorrect. There is no “exact representation” mean by Χαρακτηρ here.

Delitzsch says regarding Χαρακτηρασ “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.
His example is Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας,
This demonstrates your claim is incorrect. There is no “exact representation” mean by Χαρακτηρ here.

Delitzsch offers another example : “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.
Lucians point regarding αντιμορφων rather than a true μορφων is another example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

Delitzsch offers another example from “Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55),
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. There is no “exact representation” mean by Χαρακτηρ here.

Delitzsch offers yet another example “ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως ἀπεμάττετο τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. There is no “exact representation” mean by Χαρακτηρ here

Delitzsch offers yet another example “So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα as τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως,
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. There is no “exact representation” mean by Χαρακτηρ here

Delitzsch offers yet another example “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. H
Yet again, the example does not show “exact representation” is the meaning of the word you claim means “exact representation”.

Delitzsch offers yet another example, this time from the colleague of the apostle Peter (Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33). The text reads : “ αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα.
Not only does Delitzsch give us this example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect, but Delitzsch goes on to say : “Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex…”

Readers have been given MANY examples from ancient Greek (and ancient latin texts) that show your claim is incorrect.
Neither you nor other readers have offered a single, solitary bit of early Greek to support your claim.


EXAMPLES FROM EARLY GREEK THAT SHOW OESTES CLAIM IS CORRECT : ZERO

Therefore, your claim remains dead.


Clear
δρτωσεφιδρω

 

[Art1787]

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

Let’s take a look at a traditional (NIV) and the Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) paying special attention to verse 33:

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” NIV​

OR:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT​

We’ll proceed with the “a god” translation as if it were correct, just to see how much mileage we get. Unfortunately this crashes us head first into our first dilemma.

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

View attachment 41469

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/john/10/#v43010033

In effect, both JW.ORG and the NWT are giving backhand support for the Trinitarian translation that the crowd was about to stone Jesus for calling himself Jehovah, and not for simply referring to himself as “a god”.


Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.


Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Yet the biblical and historical record is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no record of Jews stoning their judges, magistrates, or other “powerful people” simply for considering themselves “gods”.

So where’s the evidence?


Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all! The reason for this will become clear.

Let go back to the Watchtower’s biblical scenario:

The mob is about to stone Jesus for blasphemy…calling himself “a god” according to the WT translation. They have rocks in hand, and they're itching to fly. But Jesus, having grabbed the crowd’s undivided attention does something curious. He quotes Psalm 82:6:

I have said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fail.” Psalm 82:6-7.​

The last thing you want to do with a stone wielding crowd is compare yourself to Israel’s judges of old. Why? Because the judges of old were condemned by Jehovah God! In other words, Jesus is saying “The judges of old were “sons of God”, I am the son of God, the judges of old were “gods” and I just told you I was “a god”, the judges of old were condemned by God…so what on earth is taking you so long to condemn me?”

If that doesn’t get a rock hurtling by your ear, I don’t know what would, and therein lays the Watchtower’s dilemma. They simply can’t have Jesus comparing himself to the corrupt judges of Israel by declaring he’s “a god” at John 10:33, and they certainly can’t have the crowd thinking that Jesus had just declared himself “God”.

But our clever “truth finding” friends at the Watchtower have a solution. A “twofer” they gleaned straight out of the text. Not only does Jesus deny he’s God at John 10:33, he also denies he’s “a god”! :

· 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​

source: Prehuman Existence — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (see paragraph 66)

How the WT got Jesus to deny being God and/or “a god” at John 10:33 is baffling, but I suppose if you’re a Jehovah Witness it’s all there right there, embedded somewhere in the text.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

And yet the New Testament (KJV) teaches that Jesus Christ is Jehovah incarnate, the creation and begotten son of God (who is Elohim). Remember, according to St. Paul, only the Father is God. Jesus is not God, only one of the lords or lesser divine beings. He can be called a god (one of the elohim) because he is mighty.