Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

As you should know by now, whether someone does not claim to be a Baptist, a prophet, a doctor, etc. does not mean that he is not!

So Jesus hedged his bets? He told the crowd “Maybe I’m a God or god and maybe I’m not”???

Since Jesus never claimed at any time to be God or a god, does not, by itself, mean that he is not one of them.

Oh c’mon @tigger2 ! My fellow Trinitarians and I are trying to find out how you RECONCILE scripture with the Trinity “out of the way”. How can you say ”Jesus never claimed at any time to be God or a god” at John 10:33 when you just told us his chief disciple declares him “a god” 9 Chapters ago at John 1:1?!

How do we reconcile or harmonize John's bold statement at John 1:1 that Jesus is "a god" with an equivocating Jesus at John 10:33?

Did John not speak for Jesus? Is Jesus rebuking John’s earlier statement at John 1:1?

At this point I’m pretty sure any Trinitarians like @metis or @Muffled are looking around rather puzzled. However we are looking to bring scripture into agreement rather than conflict. Tell us how Witnesses easily harmonize these two scriptures with the Trinity off the table.

However, Since Jesus is replying to the Jews accusation that he makes himself a god,

The Jews accusation is that Jesus is guilty of BLASPHEMY. There is no blasphemy unless there is a violation of the Divine Name, so obviously the Jews had to be accusing Jesus of making himself God and not “a god” unless the Jews thought the Father was “a god”. Please read the cited WT article regarding this. Here it is again:

This appears to make things more confusing than before. Please tell us how you were able to reconcile John 10:33 with Leviticus 24:16 without you or the Jews making Jehovah “a god”.

it is certainly more likely that his reply about judges being called gods in Psalm 82 means that he, too, COULD be called a god.

So with a crowd holding stones in their hands, Jesus takes this as the perfect opportunity to say he COULD be “a god” like the already condemned gods of Israel? The ones “walking in darkness” who “will die like men”?

Isn’t this a time to calm the crowd down rather than rile them up? You make it sound like Jesus had a death wish!

But let’s look at Psalm 82 again:

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?​

Why do you say he COULD be “a god”, but not God? After all, according to the WT, Jesus did not claim to be God or “a god” so he COULD be pointing out to the Jews he was God and not “a god” in this assembly. As a matter of fact, it might work out better for Jesus since the gods here are all unjust sons of the Most High who know nothing, understand nothing, and walk in darkness (Psalm 82:5). This doesn't sound like the type of assembly you want to include yourself in unless it’s you who's doing the actual judging. Wouldn't you agree?

Either way there seems to be a lot missing when we toss out the Trinity, but nevertheless we look forward to hearing how you and your fellow Witnesses have managed to harmonize these scriptures.


PROBLEMS

I am struggling to explain this to my fellow Trinitarians Tigger2. @metis has already said he's out of here. I have an apostle of Christ declaring Jesus is “a god”, Jesus claiming maybe he is or isn’t, a crowd accusing Jesus of a blasphemy that is not a blasphemy under Jewish Law, and Jesus reasoning with the crowd by drawing analogies between himself and a bunch of know nothing, condemned gods who walk in darkness (Psalm 82:5).

Is this the blueprint we should follow when there’s no Trinity? If you or your fellow Witnesses have something that ties this all together please let us know.

 

[Oeste]

But here is what he has left out:

#1061:

Here are all the constructions in John's writings that are actually parallel to the construction of John 1:1c.

H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all...

Obviously I was concerned with parallel examples to John 1:1c which Oeste’s quote completely ignores.

No...you yourself stated I left them out. I see it as not putting them in. I don't see a relationship between your rule and the text.

His examples of John 1:6 and John 1:1a are not even close to the grammar of John1:1c.

Correct! They are no closer than your rule.

I see your rule as an over generalization. It appears to be based on "The lack of a definite article means an indefinite meaning" rationale that I've heard from Witnesses before. I didn't check all your grammar constructions, I simply do not have the time to, so for now I accept them as correct, but I don't see how they would make your rule any more valid.

In fact it is clear that he is ‘responding' to a post he has not read with any understanding whatsoever.

Or in fact, it could be clear that he is ‘responding’ to a post he did read and Tigger2 is responding to a post that Oeste made that she has not read with any understanding whatsoever.

And yet he seems to be indicating in other posts that he is a student of NT Greek.

And yet she seems to be indicating in other posts that she is a student of NT Greek.

See how easy that is? We can always make assumptions about each other. All of this is totally unnecessary and really leads us nowhere.

Now let me explain to you my reasoning in more detail and why perhaps, the WT suggests we stay far away from your website:


I went through your list and noticed that every word requires an article in English, either definite or indefinite. This includes “a prophet”, “a Jew”, “a Samaritan”, “a sinner”, “a thief”… all of them. In English these words do not stand without an article of their own. However, the word “God” does NOT require an article all the time because it can stand fine and dandy by itself. That is the key, fundamental difference between your cited texts and the word "God".

Your “rule” has everything to do with English grammar (that is, when it is and is not appropriate to use articles) and very little to do with Greek grammar constructions. Since I do not see your rule having much to do with Greek grammar beyond the fact that you cited parallel constructions, I suggested the WT (or any would be translator) might be free to start adding letter “a’s” to our English translations. They would be ignoring English in favor of your rule for Greek. So even though you gave a list of phrases that may parallel the Greek construction found in John 1:1 it cannot serve as a rule for translating and interpreting Greek. Remember, there is no indefinite article like “a”, in Greek, so any translation that includes “a” is going to be ipso facto English rather than Greek interpretive.

@tigger2, I know you’ve worked long and hard on your website, but the Watchtower has stated your work is not appreciated, welcomed or needed. They serve the food, period. No one else is to serve a crumb or morsel. They have even gone so far as to question your (or anyone else's) motive for setting up an independent website to begin with and state it’s spiritually dangerous for the flock. You will not be standing on solid ground if you're hauled before a committee anymore than someone caught spreading your material through the congregation.

It's apparent you disagree with the Watchtower on their assessment of your website but this (and their translation of Hebrews 1:3) is one area where I can actually agree with the Watchtower. The difference is I do not question your good intentions, motivations, and/or effort but I would of course question a lot of your site's content, just as I do JW.ORG.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Oeste and @tigger2


CORRECT VERSUS INCORRECT USAGE OF THE ARTICLE IN GREEK

1) TIGGER2 (in post #1061) offered correct examples of article use in koine greek as examples for John 1:1c.

H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative").

2) OESTE responded (in post 1094) with incorrect examples article use
That's interesting @tigger2. We look forward to the WT’s newest light translation of John 1:1(a) based on your example: “In a beginning was the Word...”
Likewise I am sure we’ll see changes at John 1:6: There came a man who was sent as a representative of a God; his name was a John.

3) Tigger2 responded (post 1098) :
"Obviously I was concerned with parallel examples to John 1:1c which Oeste’s quote completely ignores. His examples of John 1:6 and John 1:1a are not even close to the grammar of John1:1c. In fact it is clear that he is ‘responding' to a post he has not read with any understanding whatsoever. And yet he seems to be indicating in other posts that he is a student of NT Greek."

4) Clear commended (post #1099)
“This was one of the problems I also had in trying to discuss ancient greek with Oeste.
Oeste claims to be able to read ancient greek and has comprehension of ancient greek but I not get Oeste to actually USE ancient greek in examples and the english examples he gave frequently had very basic errors in them that readers might easily miss.

For example, in response to @Tigger2s perfectly correct usage of greek parallels to John 1:C, Oestes response "...his name was a John" is completely incorrect usage of greek and the error is an incredibly basic error (even in english). Personal names do not need the definite article because you are speaking of a definite individual (in the example Oeste attempted to offer). ”

5) Oeste in (post #1100) explained his reasoning for using incorrect English and incorrect Greek in characterizing Tigger2s data saying:
“The usage I am showing is obviously not how I would base a translation. It's based on how I see Tigger2's example being implemented. It's how I see and how I would translate this if I received Tigger2's rule and was told I must use it on further translations.”

This claim itself is another bizarre claim

Tigger2s examples are perfectly correct Greek.
Your example is a bizarre example with an incredibly basic error (even in english0.

Tigger2s “rule” regard indefinite nouns and all are correct while your example switches to a definite noun and is incorrect. A Greek kindergartner would not make this mistake.
You say this is how you “would translate this” if you used Tigger2s rule, but then you do not use Tigger2s rule in your faulty “translation”.

I don’t want to misrepresent Tigger2, but I think this was one of his observations. Your example doesn’t represent tigger2s “rule” at all.

If you do not read Greek, then you have no business trying to teach Greek. However, You claim you read Greek and as a student of Greek, these are very elementary and strange mistakes to make.




2) WHAT SORT OF PATIENCE ARE READERS REQUIRED TO HAVE BEFORE YOU ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS?

Oeste said : "Be PATIENT Clear. I have LIMITED TIME. There are other things we need to discuss. Can I GET TO THEM WITH THE TIME I HAVE? "

While you characterize my multiple requests as impatience, Your inability to answer questions regarding simple Greek is not something new.

For example,

It is now June 15, 2021.

On December 22, 2020 In post #904, Clear asked Oeste :


“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.



Oeste responded in Post #906 : Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: And then he gave a cut and paste from Delitsch.

The problem was that Delitsch’s examples all undermined Oestes Claim.




Clear discussed Delitsch’s examples in post #912. (DEC 30, 2020) and asked Oeste questions about Oestes examples as follows :

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”?


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

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?


At that time you had not given a single example from ancient Greek literature that demonstrated the uncontexted lone word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness. Since that time, you have been unable to come up with a single example to support your claim yet readers have seen perhaps 30 examples that undermine your claim.


It's been about 6 months since you were asked questions about your own examples and now you claim I need to be “patient”. I’ve asked you before, IF you don’t have any examples from any literature from Greek to support your claim, then your claim remains a dead claim. Readers do not need patience, they need a single example from you from ancient Greek that shows your claim is true.


They also do not need you misrepresenting Tigger2s “rule”. While I disagree with some of Tigger2s theology, Tigger2 was perfectly correct in his use of an indefinite.


Clear
φιτζφιξσιειω

 

[Oeste]

BUT, the single, uncontexted word “horse” must have context in order to clearly mean MORE than “horse”.

1) EVEN THE WORD “HORSE” IN YOUR EXAMPLE MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEANING

Clear offered a challenge to any and all readers on the forum :
Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can't pass up the opportunity to respond further to your logic here.

We will conduct a simple test to see if your claims are correct. I invite readers to follow along.

1. OPEN YOUR DICTIONARY
2. Find the word "Horse".
3. Does your dictionary tell you "Horse" means "Horse"?​

I have no idea what dictionary Clear uses, but if your dictionary tells you “horse means horse”, or that “cow means cow”, or that “tree means tree”, then you really do not have a dictionary at all. At best you have an echo.

Worse, it your dictionary tells you that you must supply “additional context” before horse can have "additional meaning", then you certainly do not have a dictionary but you may have, at best, what some consider a practical joke.

If your English dictionary does not tell you "horse means horse" then your Greek dictionary will not tell you "Χαρακτηρ" means "Χαρακτηρ".

Clear's claim is refuted.

Clear offered a challenge to any and all readers on the forum :
Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)

NOTE : Oestes example in post #1063 does NOT show the single, uncontexted word “Horse” has any specific, additional meaning. Below is Oestes example and the word “Horse” is in BLUE and the additional context Oeste uses to add meaning is in RED.

Oestes example of uncontexted use of the word horse is : “You have just reached the summit of a hill to join your fellow Frenchman who is also an advance scout for Bonaparte’s army. He is surveying a potential battlefield when he spies an opposing force that has suddenly appeared on a ridge just beyond the meadow below. The question “Horse?” you posed to him means only one thing…”Is there opposing cavalry?”… without any “additional context” whatsoever.”

QUOTE="Clear, post: 7178174, member: 15119"] Clear responsed : “Any reader can see that a great deal of specific context (in red letters) has been added.” This refutes the claim that Horse has clear and specific meaning without having additional context[/QUOTE]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Clear's response is most egregious.

Clear states the letter's in red above has "been added". Yes, they have been added. What Clear does not understand is that this "context" (content actually) has "been added" to the sentence, and has not been injected as "additional meaning" into the word "horse". The word horse did not receive "additional context" it did not already have.

We can check this immediately.

1. OPEN YOUR DICTIONARY
2. Find the word "Horse"
3. CHECK THE MEANING​

Your dictionary will likely give you SEVERAL MEANINGS. The Following link will give you 24 different English definition for the word "Horse" and about 19 American:
LINK

Let's stick with the American:

1. a domesticated or wild, perissodactylous mammal (Equus caballus), raised in many breeds, having a large body and head, four usually long, thin legs, and a long, flowing tail: horses have been ridden, used to pull loads, etc. since ancient times
2. the full-grown male of the horse; gelding or stallion
...
8c. Heroin
...
10. [with pl. v.]; Military; British; mounted troops; cavalry
11. Mining; a mass of earth or rock inside a vein or coal seam​

Note these definitions are already there for the word "Horse". Oeste did not create one, two, or any of these definitions when he added the red text surrounding the blue word "Horse" above. If I had then the definitions would disappear once the RED LETTERS DISAPPEAR!

Copy and paste the words and blue above. Then delete all the words but the blue word "horse". Did any of the definitions or meaning disappear in your dictionary? No? Then Oeste DID NOT ADD "ADDITIONAL CONTEXT" to the word "Horse"!

This is ELEMENTARY. It doesn't get more basic than this.

So what happened? Why wasn't Clear's assertion upheld? Did Oeste perform some sort of magic??

No...

Language is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. We communicate because we are able to agree on what words mean IN ADVANCE. So when you use the word "HORSE" it ALREADY HAS an agreed amount of meanings which we call SEMANTIC RANGE. I cannot affect, unless I can make SOCIAL LINGUISTIC CHANGE, the meaning of the word "Horse". If "horse" means just "horse" our language becomes meaningless. Horse has meaning because we given it meaning already. It has several meaning, all agreed to in advance by our language and culture. The words in red, which supplies the content which surround the word "horse" , provides the context, when sufficient, that tells us the SPECIFIC MEANING of the MANY MEANINGS our language, culture, or particular geographic region has told us "horse" already has.

Clear's claim is refuted.

The reason you are unable and will be unable to answer my question "Horse?" is that language requires some degree of context to convey clear meaning. You can not even use the dictionary to answer this simple question without having more context.

This is absurd. Of course I can use a dictionary. Dictionaries do not provide us with more context, it provides us with spelling and meaning. You confuse context with meaning and meaning with context.

This example is another simple refutation of your claim that the single, uncontexted lone word "horse" needs no context to convey specific meaning.

The word "UNCONTEXTED" which I estimate Clear must have used twenty or thirty times in this thread is a RED FLAG. There is no word called "uncontexted". Look it up in your dictionary. It has no meaning because the word doesn't exist anymore than Clear's language rule.

I am not here to bust Clear's chops. I like to engage in reasonable, polite dialogue. I understand what Clear is ATTEMPTING to say so I am not pulling this out to exploit Clear. The only reason I do point this out is because this is a red flag to me that indicates Clear's language rule comes solely from Clear and not from any professional journal, grammar or book. Any rule based on this word is likely to be as fallacious as the word itself.

The same is true of the greek word "Χαρακτηρ". It requires addition context to convey the additional meaning of "Exactness".

This claim has been refuted. Your premise is wrong and so is your conclusion.

It is 2 :20 in the morning. I may not be able to get back either later today or tomorrow regarding Syl 226 but I will get to it shortly. In fact, I am quite eager to discuss this but also very tired.

Have a good morning and I hope you are resting comfortably.

 

[Oeste]

This claim itself is another bizarre claim

Tigger2s examples are perfectly correct Greek.
Your example is a bizarre example with an incredibly basic error (even in english0.

No Clear. I did not say Tigger2's examples are imperfect Greek. I states his rule is imperfect.

Can you please, just for once, pay attention to what I actually say and not try to interject into my mouth things you would prefer me to say?

Tigger2s “rule” regard indefinite nouns and all are correct while your example switches to a definite noun and is incorrect. A Greek kindergartner would not make this mistake.
You say this is how you “would translate this” if you used Tigger2s rule, but then you do not use Tigger2s rule in your faulty “translation”.

"Tigger's rule" doesn't exist Clear. If you can find a scholar that supports it, let me know, otherwise you are blowing air. I am not going to sit here and debate how I should or should not implement a fallacious rule that doesn't exist anywhere.

FIND ME A SCHOLAR WHO SUPPORTS THIS PHANTOM RULE Clear. There is NOTHING to base Tigger's rule on in Greek, so why on earth are you trying to grade me on some made up rule that doesn't exist? Of course I implemented it wrongly! When it is WRONG to begin with there is no RIGHT way to implement it. But here comes Clear, ready to show us how to RIGHTLY implement a WRONG rule.

IF TIGGER IS ALLOWED TO ENFORCE NONEXISTENT RULES TO ARRIVE AT A PREFERRED RESULT THAN OESTE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO IMPLEMENT A NONEXISTENT RULE TO ARRIVE AT HIS OWN PREFERRED RESULT.

Please Clear, do not try to hold me to one standard while you hold others to another.

That really would be "kindergarten".

I've stayed up late to honestly respond to your malicious attacks that lack even the most basic credulity Clear. No more. As I stated before, I responded to your posts before. You did not answer my post but simply inserted additional questions as a response.

I think you have enough problems answering my most recent post think and I think I may have to re-evaluate your usage of "uncontexted". If I'm going to be evaluated by you and Tigger on a perceived incorrect usage of a non-existent rule, perhaps I should be evaluating your usage on a non-existent word. Seem fair?

In the interim, I suggest you focus your attention on my response rather than trying to implement some nonexistent rule upon me. You've already tried that with some claim about "credentialing" me for Religious Forums.

If you do not read Greek, then you have no business trying to teach Greek. However, You claim you read Greek and as a student of Greek, these are very elementary and strange mistakes to make.

I can make up rules you are not carrying out effectively Clear. Anyone can do that. I suggest you look at what I believe is a valid response to Tigger's rule to see if you can find some "error" there. I'm sure there must be something. But any attempt to hold me accountable to a "correct" perception by you and Tigger of a non-existent rule that does not and simply never did exist is simply a non-starter for me. I don't have the time or patience to play that.

Of course, if you can produce an actual, reputable bona-fide Greek grammarian other than yourself who states Tigger's rule is valid, and if you can show me the scholarly publication where it was vetted so I could study it more... well then we'll have a lot more to talk about.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Hi @tigger2 and @Oeste


1) REGARDING THE GREEK USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE IN ANCIENT GREEK

@tigger2 said : “Here are all the constructions in John's writings that are actually parallel to the construction of John 1:1c.

H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all...”

@Oeste claimed : “Tigger's rule" doesn't exist Clear. If you can find a scholar that supports it, let me know, otherwise you are blowing air. I am not going to sit here and debate how I should or should not implement a fallacious rule that doesn't exist anywhere.


First of all, “Tigger2s rule” is something you made up.
Tigger2 makes no reference to "Tigger2s rule".
Tigger2 in the above quote is simply giving correct examples of the indefinite from ancient greek (parallels to John 1:1c)

Secondly, Tigger2s examples demonstrate the correct use of indefiniteness in Koine Greek parallels to John 1:1c.

Thirdly, you misrepresented Tigger2s examples usage of the indefinite.

Fourthly, regarding your example : “… There came a man who was sent as a representative of a God; his name was a John.”
Your example is incorrect Greek (and incorrect English)
This is a very basic mistake in greek grammar.

Your incorrect use of the indefinite is irrelevant to the correct indefinite examples that Trigger2 offered.



2) REGARDING THE USE OF THE ARTICLE IN KOINE GREEK

1) Oeste said : "Tigger's rule" doesn't exist Clear”

2) Oeste claimed : "There is NOTHING to base Tigger's rule on in Greek, so why on earth are you trying to grade me on some made up rule that doesn't exist?

3) Oeste said : "Of course, if you can produce an actual, reputable bona-fide Greek grammarian other than yourself who states Tigger's rule is valid, and if you can show me the scholarly publication where it was vetted so I could study it more... well then we'll have a lot more to talk about.

Ummm, Tiggers examples regarding indefinite greek are very basic greek.
How can you claim to know and read greek without knowing these very, very, basic rules?

(It is these sorts of statements which are so incoherent with your claim that you Know Greek and can read Greek and that you have comprehension of Greek.)

Greek doesn’t HAVE an indefinite article

Indefiniteness is indicated as Tigger2 demonstrated, by LACK of the definite article.
This is basic, basic Greek and to not know how to use this fact correctly is very strange.



3) REGARDING THE USE OF INCORRECT GRAMMAR TO DISCREDIT TIGGER2S CORRECT GRAMMAR OF THE INDEFINITE IN GREEK
.
Oeste admits : “Of course I implemented it wrongly!”
Hindsight is wonderful, isn’t it?

If you had followed Tigger2s correct examples of usage of the indefinite instead of simply trying to Make Tigger2s examples look bad, you could have gotten it right.



4) REGARDING OESTES CLAIM THAT THE MEANING OF HORSE AS EITHER AN ANIMAL, COCAINE AND A TYPE OF ROCK FORMATION CAN BE SPECIFIED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.


Clear offered a challenge to any and all readers on the forum :
Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)

Oestes example of uncontexted use of the word horse is : “You have just reached the summit of a hill to join your fellow Frenchman who is also an advance scout for Bonaparte’s army. He is surveying a potential battlefield when he spies an opposing force that has suddenly appeared on a ridge just beyond the meadow below. The question “Horse?” you posed to him means only one thing…”Is there opposing cavalry?”… without any “additional context” whatsoever.”

When Clear points out that ALL of the words in red are additional context that clarify what the question “Horse?” means in this instance.

Oeste claimed : “The word horse did not receive "additional context" it did not already have.”

Perhaps on another planet things are different.
On this planet, the 66 words surrounding the question "Horse?" are called "context".
The dictionary tells us that context is : “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.”
Your 66 words surrounding the question "Horse?" are circumstances that form the setting". Your failed attempt adds context.

While you were unable to offer an example to support your claim, your attempt is a wonderful example to support my claim that context IS necessary to clearly differentiate potential meanings.

My challenge to any and all readers still applies and you are welcome to try again Oeste.

The reason you are unable and will be unable to answer my question "Horse?" is that language requires some degree of context to convey clear meaning.
This is why you can not even use the dictionary to answer this simple question without having more context.


CONTEXT IS KEY TO ACCURATE, CLEAR COMMUNICATION.






5) ACCUMULATING UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING OESTES GREEK EXAMPLES :

It is now June 15, 2021.

On December 22, 2020 In post #904, Clear asked Oeste :


Clear asked Oeste : “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” implied “exactness” 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 in Post #906 : Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that:

And then he gave a cut and paste from Delitsch.


The problem was that Delitsch’s examples all undermined Oestes Claim.



Clear discussed Delitsch’s examples in post #912. (DEC 30, 2020) and asked Oeste questions about Oestes examples as follows :

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) “

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?

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE


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”.


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” implied “exactness” 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” implied “exactness”?


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” implied “exactness”.

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” implied “exactness” 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” implied “exactness”?

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” implied “exactness”.


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" , implied “exactness?


POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE


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 representation" or 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” implied “exactness” in Koine Greek?

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

Oeste. If NONE of these examples support your theory that the lone and single word "Character" implies exactness?

Why in the world would you offer these examples which show your theory is incorrect?

You referred to many Greek examples which undermined your claim. As soon as you answer these questions, you still have Milligans examples which undermine your claim as well.

Can we get to these Greek quotes and Greek questions?


We still have not gotten to your examples from Millitan which undermine your claim to exactness in Χαρακτηρ

Clear gave an example from Milligan : "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.
Oeste claimed : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 226 3.495.16.
Clear asked : "Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 226 3.495.16 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between Syll and Hebrews?
You still have not told readers why you claim Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 is "a metaphoric Χαρακτηρ" while P. Syll is "α literal Χαρακτηρ".
You claim that you read greek "with comprehension"
How does this additional claim make ANY sense and how does it support your claim?
Why does this example of ancient usage of Χαρακτηρ from Milligan (or Milligans many other examples...) show us how Χαρακτηρ was used without implying "exactness".


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "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
Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at P Flor I. 61.21.
Clear said ; "However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.
This has been my claim regarding the ancient word χαρακτηρ.


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "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”.
Oeste claimed : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in P. Leid X xxiv.11.
Clear replied : " However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.
This has been my claim regarding the ancient word χαρακτηρ.

There are multiple other questions you were asked regarding Milligans examples.

You have been unable to support your claim about ancient greek with a single example from ancient greek.

You have been unable to refute the ancient greek examples Milligan and Deliltsch and Clement have given.

You have, inadvertently, confirmed my point regarding the importance of CONTEXT in accurate communication and added meaning

You have made claims trying to dismiss the use of Χαρακτηρ in P Syll by claiming it is "literal" and Hebrews 1:3 is is "metaphoric" and not supported this claim among the many other claims you've made

These are ALL, problems for your claim.


Clear
φιτζσετωτωω

 

[TiggerII]

Obviously I was concerned with parallel examples to John 1:1c which Oeste’s quote completely ignores. His examples of John 1:6 and John 1:1a are not even close to the grammar of John1:1c. In fact it is clear that he is ‘responding’ to a post he has not read with any understanding whatsoever. And yet he seems to be claiming in other posts that he is a student of NT Greek.

From end note #8 in my study of John 1:1c (DEF):

Ambiguous Article Usage Accompanies Nouns With "Prepositional" Constructions

It is well known by NT Greek scholars that there are certain things which may cause the use (or non-use) of the definite article to be so ambiguous and arbitrary as to make it nearly meaningless in those cases. Some of these include the use of abstract nouns (see study on "The 'Qualitative' John 1:1c" - QUAL), the use of numerals, the use of proper names, etc. These, of course, must be eliminated from any proper list that attempts to provide evidence for (or against) any grammatical rule which concerns the use (or non-use) of the definite article.
….

It is certainly not surprising, then, that most, if not all, NT Greek scholars do not use examples with proper names when they are attempting to prove Colwell's Rule (or its related "rules"). Even Colwell himself recognized this important fact. In a footnote to his article which attempted to establish "Colwell's Rule" he stated, "Proper names, also, have been excluded [as examples] because they regularly lack the article whether they appear before or after the verb" - p. 17. Of course, unlike English, proper names in NT Greek also are often found with the article with no apparent significance (compare John 6:3 and 6:5).

What may be surprising, however, is that all those trinitarians who attempt to prove those "John 1:1c trinitarian rules" use examples of predicate nouns with "prepositional" constructions (usually "possessive") - e.g., "the house of me," "servant of God," "son to me," etc. In fact, all the trinitarian defenses of John 1:1c grammatical "rules" that I have examined use such "prepositional" constructions almost exclusively! (I am considering here NT Greek usages that are normally translated into English as possessive or prepositional constructions. Mostly they're nouns modified by a genitive.)

This is certainly no more proper than using personal names because of the irregular, ambiguous use of the definite article with predicate nouns (and subjects) with "prepositional" (frequently "possessive") constructions.

In section VIII, 'The Absence of the Article,' Professor A.T. Robertson tells us, "prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article" - p. 790. And "(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so." - p. 791.
..............................................
So when I wrote “Here are all the constructions in John's writings that are actually parallel to the construction of John 1:1c,” I was clearly avoiding the ambiguous examples. These include abstract nouns, proper names, non-count nouns, “prepositional” examples, and a few more as pointed out in various NT grammars.

And yet, Oeste ignorantly posts:

That's interesting @tigger2.

We look forward to the WT’s newest light translation of John 1:1(a) based on your example:

“In a beginning was the Word...”


Likewise I am sure we’ll see changes at John 1:6:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of a God; his name was a John.

.......................................................

“In a beginning” is obviously “prepositional” and has nothing to do with predicate nouns.

“a representative of a God” is obviously “prepositional” (“of God” is a genitive) and has nothing to do with predicate nouns.

“his name was a John” is clearly using a proper noun.

Just what do you think is my “rule”?

 

[Muffled]

I have studied for years. The trinity side. The JW side. The Mormon side, etc. There is 0 doubt in all creation. The teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Those who refuse to believe Jesus cannot see the facts.
I share what Jesus teaches--John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- and you reject it. Yet it is in every translation on earth.

I believe you can say that until the cows come home but all it means is that you are so brainwashed that you can't see the truth.

 

[kjw47]

I believe you can say that until the cows come home but all it means is that you are so brainwashed that you can't see the truth.

Like this truth--1 Corinthians 15:24-28

 

[Muffled]

Like this truth--1 Corinthians 15:24-28

I couldn't say for sure. I believe JW's aren't confused about every verse and you didn't say what you believed about that verse.

 

[Soapy]

I couldn't say for sure. I believe JW's aren't confused about every verse and you didn't say what you believed about that verse.

The verse means that Jesus is not Almighty God… is not YAHWEH, the Father.

The problem with all the hoohaa about ‘God/a God’ is that no one has defined what is meant by the title, ‘God’.

When the meaning of the title is established to all satisfaction then all will become clear. Consider these:

• ‘A Father is GOD in his household’
• ‘A Judge is GOD in his courtroom’
• ‘A Principal is GOD in his school’
• ‘A Grandmaster of Chess is GOD of his sport’

Of course, being human, there can be many ‘Gods’ of each of those examples… but consider a focussed singularity situation….:

• There can be only ONE Father in a household
• one Judge in a courtroom
• one principal in a school
• one Grandmaster in a tournament

So, there is only ONE Deity in Heaven… the Father: YAHWEH. Heaven is a singularity zone for ‘GOD’.

Even Satan is called ‘God’, but you see it is a singularity zone of ‘Creation’. Satan is the STEWARD ANGEL over creation… he is it’s ‘GOD’, per se! As scriptures says:

• ‘Woe to the world because Satan has come into HIS KINGDOM and he is full of rags knowing his time is short’

Why is this ‘God over creation’ enraged? It’s because he knows his attempt to gain FULL CONTROL has failed… he will have to hand over control to the SON OF GOD … remember that he tried to bribe Jesus (the last temptation we read about) in the wilderness?:

• ‘Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’

This ‘Stewardship over creation’ is something the mass majority of Christendom understand. It is abhorrent to them to think Satan is steward over creation yet they read about it being taken away from him:

• ‘I saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven’

And think, why was Satan wanting to be worshipped by mankind like his Creator, YAHWEH, was worshipped … because it was to HIM that YAHWEH said:

• ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’ (meaning: with intelligence, wisdom, self-Will, and judgemental power)

Satan created the body of Adam… Yahweh God put the Spirit into the body to enliven it. Satan said, ‘I deserve to worshipped by these created souls (speaking of generations to come of self-procreating humans) because I helped create them. But God said ‘No!: The flesh counts for nothing - the spirit is all!’.

So, since then, Satan knew he was to give up the stewardship over to creation to one from mankind and thus sort to destroy Yahweh’s plan in order to try to keep hold of the position of steward… to make himself ‘God over creation’.

In all that’s been said above, there’s no room for ‘A GOD’… Each situation is singular: God over Heaven: God over Creation’. These are ultimate positions of power and authority by context: Heaven over creation.

But, within creation:

• ‘Though there are Gods and Lords APLENTY…’

in Heaven:

• ‘There is only ONE GOD: the Deity Father, and ONE Lord: the man Jesus Christ’

Certainly, then, among humanity, there are those who ARE CALLED ‘Gods’… those in positions of power, authority, who are mighty, who are heroic, who are majestic, and powerful … and more so if they are such for the word of God:

• Moses was [like] A GOD in place of YAHWEH God over Pharoah
• Joseph was [like] A GOD in place of Pharoah
• Mordeciah was [like] A GOD in place of King Xerxes in Persia
• Jesus IS [like] GOD in place of Yahweh God in Heaven setting the world to rights

But what do you notice about all of these ‘Gods’?

Each one EVENTUALLY HANDS BACK POWER AND AUTHORITY to the one who gave (LOANED) that power and authority to them….!!!

To wit: ‘A GOD’ in humanity or creation is not ‘THE ALMIGHTY EVERLASTING UNCHANGING IMMUTABLE HEAVENLY GOD: YAHWEH’

‘

 

[thomas loebel]

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.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy

1) REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF THIS WORLD
Soapy said : Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)
This seems to be a quote (or maybe a an interpretation of a quote..?).
Can you explain where this specific quote came from and why you offered this specific statement.?

Also,

2) REGARDING WHO GOD SPOKE TO SAYING "LET US CREATE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE"
Soapy said : " why was Satan wanting to be worshipped by mankind like his Creator, YAHWEH, was worshipped … because it was to HIM that YAHWEH said:

• ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’ (meaning: with intelligence, wisdom, self-Will, and judgemental power)"(Post #1114)

Are you suggesting God was speaking to Satan when God said "let us create man in our own image?

Lastly

3) WHO CREATED TO BODY OF ADAM FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH?
Soapy claimed : "Satan created the body of Adam… "(Post #1114)
This is an unusual theory that I've never heard before.
Can you explain this theory of yours and why you think Satan created Adams body instead of God creating Adams body?


Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Clear
φισενεφυτζω

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy

1) REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF THIS WORLD
Soapy said : Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)
This seems to be a quote (or maybe a an interpretation of a quote..?).
Can you explain where this specific quote came from and why you offered this specific statement.?

Are you not familiar with the temptation that Satan inflicted on Jesus in the wilderness shortly after Jesus was anointed with Holy Spirit and with power?

Answer for yourself… Did Satan ‘offer the kingdoms of the world’ in EXCHANGE for Jesus bowing down and worshipping Satan?

Then read why Satan was able to offer the kingdoms of the world … ‘Because it is mine to give to whom I will!’

That was a lie, of course, but a lie from Satan is always couched in a truth: Satan is the stewarding Angel over the created world. He knows he was only a STEWARD and would have to eventually relinquish it to a SON OF GOD, a SON OF MAN!!!
He knew that:

• ‘the world to come will by no means be ruled by angels’!

But if he could cause Jesus to sin then there would be no ‘Son of God’ to rule, to hand over creation to… and he, Satan, would reign over creation.

Jesus (and Satan) knew the pain, the suffering, the punishment, the humiliation, that Jesus would have to go through in order to gain the rulership… Satan was trying to influence Jesus away from all that by taking an easy route (a lying route!) BUT Jesus was not fooled!!

Also,

2) REGARDING WHO GOD SPOKE TO SAYING "LET US CREATE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE"
Soapy said : " why was Satan wanting to be worshipped by mankind like his Creator, YAHWEH, was worshipped … because it was to HIM that YAHWEH said:

• ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’ (meaning: with intelligence, wisdom, self-Will, and judgemental power)"(Post #1114)

Are you suggesting God was speaking to Satan when God said "let us create man in our own image?

Yes, As above, Satan is the highest and brightest, and most intelligent of all God’s holy spirited Angels. Angels ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, IMMENSELY POWER, AND INCREDIBLY WISE… they are ‘sons of GOD’ in Spirit. So there is no problem in the realisation that God would employ them in the creation process

(I asked the question as to what the immensely powerful, incredibly wise, hugely powerful angels did in heaven and regarding creation… and received replies as to ‘NOTHING!!’… really?
Well, they said, God said he created all things by himself but you say ‘the angels helped!’

Why is it incredible…! Angels are not to be glorified not worshipped… A workman realistically does not praise, glorify, honor, let alone worship, his work tools. Ultimately, for instance, ‘DONALD TRUMP’ built ‘Trump Tower’… yet we know he didn’t do so by himself, per se! But his ‘helpers’, the contractors, are not glorified, praised, nor honored.

(but in reality, ‘By myself’, said by God, pertains to ‘OTHER GODS’… no other Gods were next to me as I commanded the creation… it is not about the ‘Angel contractors’!! The pagans believed that many Gods created the world with each in command of different aspects of the creation… Our God sad that his people are not to believe that but to believe that He alone created all things… that’s where TRINITY falls flat on its face in claiming that THREE PERSONS created … no… THE Son only Created… oh, the Father created THROUGH the Son… for the Son… BY the Son.. the Son who inherits creation (see my opening reply) …. Aahhhh !!)

No!

Lastly

3) WHO CREATED TO BODY OF ADAM FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH?
Soapy claimed : "Satan created the body of Adam… "(Post #1114)
This is an unusual theory that I've never heard before.
Can you explain this theory of yours and why you think Satan created Adams body instead of God creating Adams body?


Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Clear
φισενεφυτζω

Yes, thanks for asking. As above, Satan (‘an opposer’: the Angel who became titles so for his opposition to God) was God’s highest and most intelligent Angel in heaven. When God decided to create an image of himself in human form he needed a BODY in flesh for the image to live in. God, who obviously is completely wise, completely intelligent, completely powerful, instructed this powerful, wise, and intelligent Angel to construct the body of the man…

BUT NOTE that though the BODY was created by the Angel, IT WAS NOT A LIVING BODY. There was no ENLIVENING SPIRIT in the body. And it was only after God breathed the Breath of life (the Human Spirit) into the body that the man (the soul, the man) BECAME A LIVING SOUL…!!

And the man, Adam, was to worship his creator: GOD.

But Satan thought, ‘Why can’t I be worshipped also… afterall, I created the body!’… This is what brought the downfall of Satan… when it was refused him he sought to destroy the man but Adam held strong.

Satan then noticed that the man’s wife, Eve, was not as strong as the man, the husband, Adam, and plied her with temptation knowing it being about the downfall of man ‘IN THE LING RUN’… and that was the dishonest and deceiving question he put to Eve… That in the day they are from the tree God commanded then not to eat from they would die! Of course, God did not mean that they would fall down dead at the one bite… but an eternal death over time… So Eve was fooled because she ate and did not die. And so, Adam - wrongfully following his wife, which God did not instruct him to do - also ate and fell into Satan’s trap.

So, a question would be: Why and how did Satan manage to be in a position of power to persuade a holy man to sin if he did not know the ways of man and it’s failure points… The Desire of The Flesh!!

Yes, Satan knew that the BODY would crave the physical fruit… because He created the body.

And, think about this also: Did other angels desert their holy command positions in heaven over creation to created BODIES for themselves??

But, like Satan creating the body of Adam, they could not ENLIVEN those bodies with independent Spirits… So they put THEIR OWN SELVES (their Spirit) into the bodies to enliven them….

And, those bodies were so human-like as to be able to PROCREATE with human females and produce offsprings (The Nephilims).

But we know from scriptures that these Nephilims were an abomination in the same creation space as humanity. And God wiped them out off the face of the earth BUT the spirits of those angels were then locked away ‘in spiritual chains’ awaiting destruction at the end of time.

Satan, however, like all HIGH GENERALS in office, is not imprisoned while his trial is ongoing… When Satan is proved wrong about mankind and God’s purpose for them, then Satan will be destroyed … Satan pleads for time now and given EVERY OPPORTUNITY to prove God wrong about man living without GOD… and So, Satan still RULES OVER CREATION as the scriptures says, awaiting the day of judgement:

• “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Rev 12:12)
• “I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening…’

And the anecdote concerning Job shows God allowing Satan to try to prove against God and failing absolutely… Satan was allowed into Heaven and given every opportunity to get Job to curse God - Job is the representation of the holy people of God who keep themselves from sinning even under immense pressure. Job’s sons represent those who give in or take upon themselves to sin - and his daughters are those led by sin!

Yes, thank you for asking the questions. Trinitarians do not ask questions such as these… let alone even able to furnish an answer when they are asked… which makes me wonder what and how do they teach the scriptures without such knowledge and information (perhaps because anyone who does ask them such questions is swiftly ejected from the church!!!??)

 

[Muffled]

Soapy said "The verse means that Jesus is not Almighty God… is not YAHWEH, the Father." 1Cor 15:24
1Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

I believe it takes a lot of twisting to get it to say that so what is your twist?

 

[Soapy]

Soapy said "The verse means that Jesus is not Almighty God… is not YAHWEH, the Father." 1Cor 15:24
1Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

I believe it takes a lot of twisting to get it to say that so what is your twist?

Well, that’s the problem - there is no twist.

verse 28 sums it up:

• “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28)

Your post was of no other use than as a pointless opposer to truth seeing that your answer is in the very next set of verses (24-28) that you conveniently for your own purpose didn’t bother to post.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF THIS WORLD
Soapy said : Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)
Clear replied : "This seems to be a quote (or maybe a an interpretation of a quote..?).
Can you explain where this specific quote came from and why you offered this specific statement.? (post #1116)
Soapy replied : "Are you not familiar with the temptation that Satan inflicted on Jesus in the wilderness shortly after Jesus was anointed with Holy Spirit and with power? (post #1117)


Yes, I am. Your version does not appear in the bible and is quite different than the authentic version.

Compare your version to the authentic version. Soapy said : Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)

Jesus was shown and offered "the kingdoms of the world.”

Your version says : “I will give you the kingdom”
The authentic version says :"All these I will give you”

Your version adds : “IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL”
The authentic version does not add this phrase at all

since your quote did not come from the bible, I asked if it was "an interpretation" of yours that was inadvertently offered as an authentic biblical quote.




2) REGARDING WHO GOD SPOKE TO SAYING "LET US CREATE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE"
Soapy said : " why was Satan wanting to be worshipped by mankind like his Creator, YAHWEH, was worshipped … because it was to HIM that YAHWEH said:

• ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’ (meaning: with intelligence, wisdom, self-Will, and judgemental power)"(Post #1114)

Clear asked : "Are you suggesting God was speaking to Satan when God said "let us create man in our own image? (post #1116)
Soapy answered ; “Yes, As above, Satan is the highest and brightest, and most intelligent of all God’s holy spirited Angels.” (post #1117)

Yes, Satan is smart. That is irrelevant to my question.

My question had to do with your claim that God was speaking to Satan when God said : "Let us create man in our own image".
Do you have any historical data that supports this theory that God was speaking to Satan when he said "Let us create man in our own image."?




3) WHO CREATED TO BODY OF ADAM FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH?
Soapy claimed : "Satan created the body of Adam… "(Post #1114)
Clear asked : "Can you explain this theory of yours and why you think Satan created Adams body instead of God creating Adams body?" (post #1116)
Soapy replied : "“BUT NOTE that though the BODY was created by the Angel,…”
Soapy, there was NO supporting data in your reply. Even the phrase, “BUT NOTE that though the BODY was created by the Angel,…” is a repetition of your claim but it is not supporting data.
The rest of your reply was irrelevant to support of this specific theory.
Nothing in your answer explains your theory or WHY you think Satan created Adams body instead of Adams body being created by God.

Do you actually have any pertinent historical data that explains this theory of yours that Satan created Adams Body?

I don’t see what advantage your theory has over the Judeo-Christian tradition that God created Adams body.
Do you have any supporting data to offer readers in support of your two theories ?

1) Satan created Adams body
2) God was speaking to Satan when he said "Let us create man in our own likeness (or image)


Clear
φισιτζδρτωω