TiggerII
Active Member
"who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah [YHWH]? and there is no God [Elohim] else besides me" - Isaiah 45:21, ASV.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
"who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah [YHWH]? and there is no God [Elohim] else besides me" - Isaiah 45:21, ASV.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Yes, you certainly did.
I've quoted them accurately. What doesn't make sense is for you to put words and ideas into their mouth they didn't say (like "modern translators"). You've tried to do the same with me.
Bogus.
Neither Milligan and Moulton mention "modern translators" in their definition of Χαρακτηρ. That is a total, utter and complete fabrication you invented out of thin air.
Read his translation again.
I have, multiple times. I want you to read it, really read it, for the first time. And just to be fair, here it is, side by side, your printing and mine:
Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.
Here's what I think Clear. For every time you can show us "modern translators" above, I can show "dancing bears".
Are Moulton and Milligan us how Χαρακτηρ was used over time? Of course they are! This is indicated by the word "FROM". His definition terminate with "hence = "an exact reproduction". Notice he says squat about "modern translators" or "modern Greek". If he did he would use the abbreviation "MGr" as I DEMONSTRATED, in painstaking detail, earlier. The word come to mean "exact reproduction" in the NT only in Hebrews 1:3, not in modern Greek. He is not "refuting" modern translators in his definitions, he is not "refuting" the Catholic or Protestant Churches. He is not taking aim at the Watchtower. He is not taking aim at Mormons, and he is not agreeing with you.
I don't have to take Milligan out of context but you do. All I have to do is quote Milligan and Moulton and ask you to explain where you found these modern translators that Milligan was trying to refute. Where does he say "modern translators" are wrong in their translation of Χαρακτηρ? Where does he say "exact representation" is the translation of "modern translators" only?
Quite simply if you can insert "modern translators" into Milligan's definition of Χαρακτηρ , we can only imagine what you can do for scripture!
I've never claimed Milligan's point is incorrect. I have pointed out, on numerous and varied occasions, that you have been incorrect.
Milligan refutes your claim that Χαρακτηρ means Χαρακτηρ unless you add an adjective or "additional content". Why on earth would I point out he is incorrect??? This sounds like wishful thinking on your part. A lot of wishful thinking at that.
Yes, you have.
Anybody can read what Zodhiates wrote. That why I posted it several times. It's to encourage them to read it.
They do not need you to “interpret” his writings with inventive, "additional content" for them.
Exactly my point Clear. The Church doesn't has no quibble with either tranaslation.
It's you that has the problem.
Both translation are impossible remember? They both have that "adjective" or "additional content" that your Greek language rule doesn't allow.
Yes, that's what I've been telling you all along. That's what the Mormon Church has been telling you. That's what the Watchtower has been telling you. That's what the Catholic Church has been telling you. That what the Protestant Church has been telling you. It's even what the Christian Scientists will tell you.
The problem is that every time we make a break through like this you suddenly forget you agree with Zodhiates and start inserting your own definitions for his instead!!!
Here's my response in context:
You now claim my comment is "bizarre" for agreeing with your comment about Zodhiates.
It's pretty clear you are not reading my posts and simply wasting my time.
Clear, I assume you can read English with comprehension. Why are you taking pot-shots at me on points where we agree?
It's pretty clear that you are not reading my posts and have simply adopted a "disagree with Oeste no matter what he says" position.
That is something I would consider "bizarre".
Oeste
Well-Known Member
ILLUSTRATIONS from Milligan would be more appropriate.
1.
2. I do not see the value in refuting points no one has ever made. I will make an example of a few of these comments but to refute them all is a repetitive waste of time.
3. Milligan uses this as an illustration of the word χαρακτηρα. It's a gloss, not a definition.
4. We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16. Any suggestion we should is absurd. Milligan does not do this. Nobody does this.
5. Scripture interprets scripture, not Greek artifacts.
6. This is a regurgitation of a previously refuted point.
7. 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, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.
1.
2. I do not see the value in refuting points no one has ever made.
3. This is an illustration of the word χαρακτηρα. It's a gloss, not a definition.
4. We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on P Flor I. 61.21. Any suggestion we should is absurd.
5. Scripture interprets scripture, not Greek artifacts.
6. This is a regurgitation of a previously refuted point.
7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P Flor I. 61.21, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.
1.
2. I do not see the value in refuting points no one has ever made.
3. This is an illustration of the word χαρακτηρα. It's a gloss, not a definition.
4. We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on P. Leid X xxiv.11 . Any suggestion we should is absurd.
5. Scripture interprets scripture, not Greek artifacts.
6. This is a regurgitation of a previously refuted point.
7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P. Leid X xxiv.11
1.
2. I do not see the value in refuting points no one has ever made.
3. This is an illustration of the word χαρακτηρα. It's a gloss, not a definition.
4. We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 3 783.23. Any suggestion we should is absurd.
5. Scripture interprets scripture, not Greek artifacts.
6. This is a regurgitation of a previously refuted point.
7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 3 783.23
These rather dubious "points" were refuted in posts #979 and #952.
As stated in my last post, I am sure Clear has even more pagan magic papyri, obelisks, statutes, and pottery shards that demonstrate our translation of the Divine Name is wrong and that it should be Zeus. I really don't see Clear's point of basing our understanding of Paul's words on pagan artifacts. We are much better allowing scripture to interpret scripture. He has egregiously misunderstood the scope, purpose and works of Moulton, Milligan, Alford and Delitzsch.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Thanks for bringing us back to thread theme @Art1787. Yes Jesus is Jehovah, but in terms of the OP, that's kind of "off the table".
I don't quite recall Paul stating only the Father is God or that Jesus is "only one of the lords or lesser divine beings". However I don't see how that helps answer the OP. The Jews weren't picking up rocks to stone someone they thought was calling himself a lesser divine being. It would have made everyone else they considered "one of the lords" or "a god" equally subject to stoning.
In any event, the Watchtower assures us that Jesus himself told the mob he was not a god by the time John 10:30-33 roles around:
POST ONE OF TWO
Hi@Oeste
1) OESTES USE OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS FROM MEDIEVAL TIMES VERSUS MILLIGANS USE OF ORIGINAL GREEK FROM ALMOST 2000 YEARS EARLIER
Oeste said : "Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.
Look at the historical calendar and timeline.
In illustrating what words meant and how they were used in ancient Koine, Milligan uses ancient text (Syll 226 is approx. 320 b.c.) and they are in the original ancient Koine Greek.
The texts you typically refer to are English translations and from almost 2000 years later than Milligans illustrations. They are translations and they are relatively modern. Modern translations.
This was part of the Genius of Milligan. He used ancient texts in their original language to illustrate what New Testament words meant at that time and in that language.
Your approach is different than Milligans.
You refer to modern english translations (medieval ages at best) to attempt to tell readers what an ancient word, in another language meant. This will not do. It is a classic example of an etymological fallacy.
2) MILLIGANS DESCRIPTION OF HOW SOME MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES READ IS NOT A TRANSLATION.
Oeste said : "Read his translation again."
Milligans is not “translating” anything when he points out how the word Χαρακτηρ has been translated into English.
His purpose of his illustrations is to show in ancient Greek what the word actually meant and how it was actually used in actual ancient Greek texts.
For example, he uses his illustrations to correct the incorrect translation of υποστασισ in Hebrews 1:3 as well.
3) THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF MILLIGANS ILLUSTRATIONS WAS TO ADD CONTEXT (ILLUSTRATIONS) TO ANCIENT WORDS AND THEIR USAGE ANCIENTLY
Oeste said : "Milligan refutes your claim that Χαρακτηρ means Χαρακτηρ unless you add an adjective or "additional content".
First of all, try quoting me correctly.
I claim that Χαρακτηρ needs additional CONTEXT to have additional meaning beyond the base word.
Secondly, you are making yet another erroneous claim.
Can you give us even ONE example where Milligan EVER uses the greek word Χαρακτηρ WITHOUT additional context to mean more than the base word.
Clear said : "Zodhiates claim that it is translated "Express image" in the New Testament is NOT "exact reproduction".
Oeste responded : Exactly my point Clear.
So, your point is that “express image” is not “exact reproduction”. Good to know.
Oeste said : The Church doesn't has no quibble with either tranaslation.
Good. This is another irrelevant point.
Oeste said : "Both translation are impossible remember?
This is another erroneousy statement.
Both translations certainly ARE possible if there is additional context.
Oeste said : "They both have that "adjective" or "additional content" that your Greek language rule doesn't allow.
This is yet another erroneous statement.
Greek language DOES allow adjectives and additional “context” and in fact requires additional context for additional meaning and specificity.
4) REGARDING MILLIGANS ILLUSTRATIONS OF MEANING AND USE OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ IN ANCIENT KOINE GREEK
Congratulations. You say you read greek with comprehension and you are now, finally, discussing the examples from greek that demonstrate your claim is incorrect.
I do not think your habit of claiming everything is a "strawman" will help against Milligans examples. He is well respected in his data.
Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16
YOU claimed the lone word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" rather than merely "representation".
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.
Oeste said : "We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16.
Syll 226 is simply a single illustration among hundreds, and we DO base definitions of ancient meaning of ancient words and their usage on the larger data pools of hundreds of examples from ancient language as a whole.
That is the advantage of allowing readers to examine MULTIPLE examples.
A pattern of what something meant to the ancients becomes clear only after diligently looking at how the ancients used words and what those words meant TO THEM in THEIR language and in THEIR time period.
Lexicons and grammars of ancient languages are supposed to tell us what a word meant IN THE LANGUAGE AND IN THE ERA the lexicon refers to.
You’ve used a modern definition and modern usage in English in an attempt to support religious bias and Milligan is simply providing illustrations that demonstrate ancient definition and usage in the original ancient language.
This accumulation of data DOES tell us what New Testament words meant in the original language and useage.
Milligan tells as much in his preface of these illustrations regarding the discoveries of these texts : “It is leading to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament, and no modern commentary on any of its books fails to avail itself of the help afforded by these new treasures from Egypt.
Meanwhile, it may be helpful to those who have made no special study of the subject if I attempt to indicate some of the ways in which the new evidence can be applied to the elucidation of the words of the New Testament. “
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 said : "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.
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?
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.
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.
Oeste claimed : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P Flor I. 61.21, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Flor I. 61.21 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P Flor I and Hebrews?
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.
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.
Oeste said : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P. Leid X xxiv.11
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Leid X is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Leid X and Hebrews?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "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.
Oeste said : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in Syll 3 783.23.
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.
Oeste said : "7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 3 783.23
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 3 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Syll and Hebrews?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "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.”
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) the text reads : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Hi@Oeste
1) OESTES USE OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS FROM MEDIEVAL TIMES VERSUS MILLIGANS USE OF ORIGINAL GREEK FROM ALMOST 2000 YEARS EARLIER
Oeste said : "Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.
Look at the historical calendar and timeline.
In illustrating what words meant and how they were used in ancient Koine, Milligan uses ancient text (Syll 226 is approx. 320 b.c.) and they are in the original ancient Koine Greek.
The texts you typically refer to are English translations and from almost 2000 years later than Milligans illustrations. They are translations and they are relatively modern. Modern translations.
This was part of the Genius of Milligan. He used ancient texts in their original language to illustrate what New Testament words meant at that time and in that language.
Your approach is different than Milligans.
You refer to modern english translations (medieval ages at best) to attempt to tell readers what an ancient word, in another language meant. This will not do. It is a classic example of an etymological fallacy.
2) MILLIGANS DESCRIPTION OF HOW SOME MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES READ IS NOT A TRANSLATION.
Oeste said : "Read his translation again."
Milligans is not “translating” anything when he points out how the word Χαρακτηρ has been translated into English.
His purpose of his illustrations is to show in ancient Greek what the word actually meant and how it was actually used in actual ancient Greek texts.
For example, he uses his illustrations to correct the incorrect translation of υποστασισ in Hebrews 1:3 as well.
3) THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF MILLIGANS ILLUSTRATIONS WAS TO ADD CONTEXT (ILLUSTRATIONS) TO ANCIENT WORDS AND THEIR USAGE ANCIENTLY
Oeste said : "Milligan refutes your claim that Χαρακτηρ means Χαρακτηρ unless you add an adjective or "additional content".
First of all, try quoting me correctly.
I claim that Χαρακτηρ needs additional CONTEXT to have additional meaning beyond the base word.
Secondly, you are making yet another erroneous claim.
Can you give us even ONE example where Milligan EVER uses the greek word Χαρακτηρ WITHOUT additional context to mean more than the base word.
Clear said : "Zodhiates claim that it is translated "Express image" in the New Testament is NOT "exact reproduction".
Oeste responded : Exactly my point Clear.
So, your point is that “express image” is not “exact reproduction”. Good to know.
Oeste said : The Church doesn't has no quibble with either tranaslation.
Good. This is another irrelevant point.
Oeste said : "Both translation are impossible remember?
This is another erroneousy statement.
Both translations certainly ARE possible if there is additional context.
Oeste said : "They both have that "adjective" or "additional content" that your Greek language rule doesn't allow.
This is yet another erroneous statement.
Greek language DOES allow adjectives and additional “context” and in fact requires additional context for additional meaning and specificity.
4) REGARDING MILLIGANS ILLUSTRATIONS OF MEANING AND USE OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ IN ANCIENT KOINE GREEK
Congratulations. You say you read greek with comprehension and you are now, finally, discussing the examples from greek that demonstrate your claim is incorrect.
I do not think your habit of claiming everything is a "strawman" will help against Milligans examples. He is well respected in his data.
Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16
YOU claimed the lone word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" rather than merely "representation".
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.
Oeste said : "We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16.
Syll 226 is simply a single illustration among hundreds, and we DO base definitions of ancient meaning of ancient words and their usage on the larger data pools of hundreds of examples from ancient language as a whole.
That is the advantage of allowing readers to examine MULTIPLE examples.
A pattern of what something meant to the ancients becomes clear only after diligently looking at how the ancients used words and what those words meant TO THEM in THEIR language and in THEIR time period.
Lexicons and grammars of ancient languages are supposed to tell us what a word meant IN THE LANGUAGE AND IN THE ERA the lexicon refers to.
You’ve used a modern definition and modern usage in English in an attempt to support religious bias and Milligan is simply providing illustrations that demonstrate ancient definition and usage in the original ancient language.
This accumulation of data DOES tell us what New Testament words meant in the original language and useage.
Milligan tells as much in his preface of these illustrations regarding the discoveries of these texts : “It is leading to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament, and no modern commentary on any of its books fails to avail itself of the help afforded by these new treasures from Egypt.
Meanwhile, it may be helpful to those who have made no special study of the subject if I attempt to indicate some of the ways in which the new evidence can be applied to the elucidation of the words of the New Testament. “
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 said : "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.
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?
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.
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.
Oeste claimed : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P Flor I. 61.21, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Flor I. 61.21 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P Flor I and Hebrews?
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.
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.
Oeste said : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P. Leid X xxiv.11
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Leid X is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Leid X and Hebrews?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "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.
Oeste said : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in Syll 3 783.23.
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.
Oeste said : "7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 3 783.23
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 3 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Syll and Hebrews?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "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.”
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) the text reads : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) the text refers to a “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) the text speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” ,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) the text says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) the text says Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) the son says “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
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)
Clear gave an example from Delitzsch : "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”.
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :" 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,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, in the same language in a similar time period to the same word in Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch : “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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Readers have been given MANY examples from ancient Greek (and ancient latin texts) that show your claim is incorrect. You have, so far, not given them a single example from ancient Greek where your claim is true.
The score from O.T. Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch, and Milligan still remains 30 to Oestes' zero.
I still do not see how your greek claim that has no greek data to support it can be revived.
δρτωακσεσιω
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) the text refers to a “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) the text speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” ,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) the text says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) the text says Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) the son says “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
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)
Clear gave an example from Delitzsch : "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”.
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :" 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,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, in the same language in a similar time period to the same word in Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch : “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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"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…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
Readers have been given MANY examples from ancient Greek (and ancient latin texts) that show your claim is incorrect. You have, so far, not given them a single example from ancient Greek where your claim is true.
The score from O.T. Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch, and Milligan still remains 30 to Oestes' zero.
I still do not see how your greek claim that has no greek data to support it can be revived.
δρτωακσεσιω
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Hi Clear,
I must travel to visit a relative (91!
) who has been ill recently. I know she does not have internet access, cable or anything like that so it may be a week before I can respond. I'm hoping she has a neighbor that has a good accessible wi-fi connection, knows how to set up a a guest password, and will allow me to piggy-back. There is a coffee shop a few blocks away, but my daughter reminds me that the days of walking into a local coffee shop, sitting down and plugging in are probably on hold for now.
I see a 13", two or three channel tv with snowy reception in my immediate future but it will be good to see her.
Take care,
Oeste
I must travel to visit a relative (91!
) who has been ill recently. I know she does not have internet access, cable or anything like that so it may be a week before I can respond. I'm hoping she has a neighbor that has a good accessible wi-fi connection, knows how to set up a a guest password, and will allow me to piggy-back. There is a coffee shop a few blocks away, but my daughter reminds me that the days of walking into a local coffee shop, sitting down and plugging in are probably on hold for now. I see a 13", two or three channel tv with snowy reception in my immediate future
but it will be good to see her.Take care,
Oeste
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
But you told the truth.
What don’t people understand that Jesus was ENDOWED with the Holy Spirit of God.... AT HIS BAPTISM at the river Jordan. John baptised him with water BUT GOD BAPTISED (anointed) him with HOLY SPIRIT.
And we know from scriptures that future kings and priests were ANOINTED by holy men for their purpose: Jesus is purposes to be BOTH King AND HIGH PRIEST.
Further, Jesus STATED to the people that the ‘MIRACLES’ he was applauded for carrying out were actually ACTS OF THE FATHER: Yahweh God. In other words, it is BY THE POWER OF YAHWEH’s Holy Spirit, by Yahweh’s POWER, that these ‘Miracles’ were done....
And, Jesus told the disciples that THEY TOO could do the same if they had enough FAITH and BY PRAYER... witness Peter walking on the sea and the disciples, even the 72, who went about performing these SAME MIRACLES.
Yet Trinitarians STILL say that these could only be done if the person is ALMIGHTY GOD. Wow!!! What lack of understanding.
And in addition, have they forgotten that Elisha and Elijah BOTH RAISED THE DEAD!!!??? And a thousand years before Jesus was born!!!
Sad to say, People raised from the dead - DIED AGAIN. If ‘GOD’ raised people from the dead, why did they still die again? Why, even Lazarus died (again) at some time.
No, there is only one TRUE ETERNAL resurrection (after Jesus himself), and that is at the end of time WHEN JESUS is seated on the throne on judgement day.
Man, you joked but you didn’t realise what truth you were writing!!!!!
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
The poster here is correct.He said he was "the son of God".....never once did he say he was God.
John 17:22 proves that John 10:30 is not talking about Jesus and his Father being part of a godhead....because Jesus plainly states that..... “The glory G1391 which G3739 You have given G1325 Me I have given G1325 to them, that they may be one, G1520 just G2531 as We are one; G1520
Was Jesus claiming to be part of a trinity with his disciples as well?Or was he stating a unity of belief and purpose?
There is no way to prove a trinity using the Bible because there is more that refutes it than there is to support it.
1) Jesus NEVER called himself ‘God’. He said that EVEN MEN OF THE PAST whom GOD glorified, God had called ‘GODS’, yet he (Jesus) had ONLY called himself ‘SON OF GOD’... ‘how is that blasphemy’, Jesus argued.
The Jew’s CLAIM was that ‘A Son is EQUAL to his Father’..., clearly a nonsense! What if a Father has more than one son - are they all EQUAL to their Father? Thus, Jesus saying he was son of his Father somehow meant to the Jews that Jesus was EQUAL TO GOD.
This leaves a few problems:
- WHERE did such a notion come from? I have searched the scriptures and can find nowhere to justify this claim.
- The Jews believed wholeheartedly in ONE GOD. So how were they claiming Jesus was claiming to be A[nother] GOD?
- Trinitarian believers are often heard to CLAIM that the Jews KNEW Jesus was GOD despite NEVER EVER saying so and even stating clearly ‘You being a MAN’, and ‘It is best we remove THIS MAN before the Romans come and take away our rights’ (paraphrased).
Even John 1:1 doesn’t work... especially John 1:1 doesn’t work.
John 1:1 is a SUMMARY - in fact the summary goes up to John 1:18 (I think) or whichever verse states that Jesus is in the bosom of the Father as the only begotten Son.
This last verse speaks of the RISEN CHRIST... in Heaven. And ‘bosom’ simply means that he us in the closest relationship to the Father. We use that term today as ‘bosom buddies’ but maybe some people don’t know this colloquialism!
Jesus being the only begotten is nothing to do with being created or uncreated... it’s simply that he is the only one who is without sin. The Father ‘BEGOT’ him when he said,
- ‘This is my son’ and,
- ‘This day I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER and You have BECOME MY SON’.
If you adopt a child, do you not proclaim such in thus way?
But when was this? SURELY when Jesus was ANOINTED at the river Jordan.
Oh, by the way, try using a definition for the word, “God” and using the word “God” as a person of power:
- In the beginning was the word (of THE GOD (YAHWEH))
- And the word was (majestic, powerful, immense, powerful) : “Let there be light”
- The word was with YAHWEH:God. (It was His word)
Yahweh did what he said he would do - SEND A SAVIOUR!!!
So, yes, THE WORD OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED ON EARTH and a SAVIOUR WAS SENT... and yes, that saviour was GIVEN THE NAME, Jesus. Please note that his name is WAS NOT “Jesus Christ’... ‘Christ’ means “Anointed one” so he only became Christ after his baptism.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
All the Jews were 'the children of their God', so they were all children of the father.
But up in Galilee Jews often referred to themselves as 'son of man', rather like folks around here might refer to themselves as 'this bloke' or 'this kid' etc, as in 'this bloke is going to the shops' or whatever.
Soapy........ why don't you just tell us what you believe?
Please keep it simple, eh? I'm old.
Even Deists like me claim that there is a God.
I don't believe that Jesus died that week, soapy.
I've never adopted a child, soapy.
I think that Jesus got baptised like everybody else.
I'm a Deist.
I don't personally believe any of that.
I think that Jesus got baptised just the same as everybody else, and that he pickred up the Baptists' campaign after his arrest.
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
OldBadger, what is a ‘Deist’?All the Jews were 'the children of their God', so they were all children of the father.
But up in Galilee Jews often referred to themselves as 'son of man', rather like folks around here might refer to themselves as 'this bloke' or 'this kid' etc, as in 'this bloke is going to the shops' or whatever.
Soapy........ why don't you just tell us what you believe?
Please keep it simple, eh? I'm old.
Even Deists like me claim that there is a God.
I don't believe that Jesus died that week, soapy.
I've never adopted a child, soapy.
I think that Jesus got baptised like everybody else.
I'm a Deist.
I don't personally believe any of that.
I think that Jesus got baptised just the same as everybody else, and that he pickred up the Baptists' campaign after his arrest.
I don’t think you need to have actually adopted a child to understand what a wonderful thing it would be if you were adopting a child to say to the child:
- “[child’s name], today, I have become to you, a Father - and you have become, to me, a Son (or daughter)”
Jesus was the first to be baptised with Yahweh’s Holy Spirit. An anointing with special Holy Oil (legal only to priests and prophets) just as those marked for kingship and priest-ship were anointed in the past... The holy oil in this case was the ‘Oil of Gladness’ - the holy SPIRIT.
I did not say that there were no other ‘Gods’. I said that the JW were wrong to translate and inject the generality (‘a God’) where it was not meant. And this is the distinct controversy between JW and trinitarian Christians.
The term ‘God’ in John 1:1 where this embarrassment of interpretation of scholared persons gives rise to the belief that it was ‘God’ or ‘A God’ is referring to the ‘Majesty’, the power, the authority, of God - not the PERSON, ‘God’ (Yahweh).
And if you understand that then you will understand John 1:1 entirely and there would be no controversy.
In terms of Elohim (as what this thread is concerning), IF Jesus is THE WORD of GOD then how could this trinity be cohesive ONE since THE FATHER is NOT also THE WORD OF GOD - in fact, nor is the Holy Spirit THE WORD OF GOD ... yet trinity it’s proclaims that all three ARE THE SAME!
Clearly an incredible conundrum.
Any takers as to how this error of definition could be justified? ((I’m betting it cannot!))
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You will have to seek Anders from JWs soapy.
Deists believe that God is every thing, force and space....too big to even be aware of this spec of dust.
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
What is the purpose of your post?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You asked me what a Deist is. Remember?
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
I don’t see what contribution you are making - that’s why I asked.
I don’t think there are any believers in a single ‘GOD’ who don’t think that such a ‘God’ is ALMIGHTY.
So, being a DEIST means nothing!
Where did this DEIST concept come from - I’ve not heard of it before?
And what is its purpose? What does a DEIST believer believe (other than that their God is almighty!)?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
If you say so.
TiggerII
Active Member
- I am unable to eliminate the cross-throughs below.
JW
….………………………..
The following is a small part of a personal study which proves the use of the accusative theon at John 10:33 should be understood as "a god." http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/theon-rdbs-rule.html
...............................................
We may safely say, then, that, if theon (the accusative case) in John’s writings (1) is not in a “prepositional” (modified by a genitive or a prepositional phrase) construction and (2) does not come before the verb, then the definite article with it always signifies the only true God (“God”), and its absence signifies someone else (“a god”). If this were not the case, the following statement by a respected trinitarian source would be absolutely senseless. In its analysis of 1 Thess. 1:8 (written by the Apostle Paul who is known to be less careful in article usage than the Gospel writers) A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament states:
“the definite article with theon indicates their faith in the true God and contrasts their present attitude to God with their past pagan attitude to idols.” - Vol. 2, p. 241, Zondervan, 1980.
Now let’s look at John 10:33-36. Notice that theon here does not have a definite article and does not come before the verb, nor is it in a “prepositional” construction. Obviously then (as context also indicates) John 10:33 should be translated “a god” (as in the trinitarian New English Bible) rather than “God” (as in the majority of trinitarian Bibles).
Famous trinitarian Dr. Robert Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, confirms this understanding:
“... ‘makest thyself a god,’ not ‘God’ as in [KJV], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- ‘gods..gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates.”
And it is further admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
“making himself a god.” - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint. (Also see p. 344, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, Newman and Nida, UBS, 1980.)
The Jews were not saying that Jesus was making himself the only true God. They were using theon in its secondary sense of the word (“a god” or “a mighty person”). This secondary, sense of the word was applied in a negative sense to false gods and in a more positive sense to angels, judges, etc. by the Bible writers - (see the BOWGOD and DEF studies).
Jesus’ response also shows that he understood the Jews to be using the word in its secondary sense (not “God” but “a god” - probably meant here in the negative sense of a false god), and he reminded them, by quoting Ps. 82:6, that God himself had called certain Israelites “gods” (John 10:34). With this reply Jesus showed them he could have called himself “a god” in that very same positive sense, and it would have been proper. (His reply, however, would have been nonsensical if the Jews had really said, “you make yourself God”!)
Last edited by a moderator:
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Paul says He is the fullness of the godhead.
TiggerII
Active Member
"Trinitarian believers are often heard to CLAIM that the Jews KNEW Jesus was GOD despite NEVER EVER saying so and even stating clearly ‘You being a MAN’, and ‘It is best we remove THIS MAN before the Romans come and take away our rights’ (paraphrased).
"JW are incorrect to claim ‘a God.’There is no such translation." [from Soapy (#1029)]
….………………………..
The following is a small part of a personal study which proves the use of the accusative theon at John 10:33 should be understood as "a god." Examining the Trinity: THEON - 'RDB's Rule' (Jn 1:18; 10:33) and Examining the Trinity
...............................................
We may safely say, then, that, if theon (the accusative case) in John’s writings (1) is not in a “prepositional” (modified by a genitive or a prepositional phrase) construction and (2) does not come before the verb, then the definite article with it always signifies the only true God (“God”), and its absence signifies someone else (“a god”). If this were not the case, the following statement by a respected trinitarian source would be absolutely senseless. In its analysis of 1 Thess. 1:8 (written by the Apostle Paul who is known to be less careful in article usage than the Gospel writers) A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament states:
“the definite article with theon indicates their faith in the true God and contrasts their present attitude to God with their past pagan attitude to idols.” - Vol. 2, p. 241, Zondervan, 1980.
Now let’s look at John 10:33-36. Notice that theon here does not have a definite article and does not come before the verb, nor is it in a “prepositional” construction. Obviously then (as context also indicates) John 10:33 should be translated “a god” (as in the trinitarian New English Bible) rather than “God” (as in the majority of trinitarian Bibles).
Famous trinitarian Dr. Robert Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, confirms this understanding:
“... ‘makest thyself a god,’ not ‘God’ as in [KJV], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- ‘gods..gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates.”
And it is further admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
“making himself a god.” - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint. (Also see p. 344, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, Newman and Nida, UBS, 1980.)
The Jews were not saying that Jesus was making himself the only true God. They were using theon in its secondary sense of the word (“a god” or “a mighty person”). This secondary, sense of the word was applied in a negative sense to false gods and in a more positive sense to angels, judges, etc. by the Bible writers - (see the BOWGOD and DEF studies).
Jesus’ response also shows that he understood the Jews to be using the word in its secondary sense (not “God” but “a god” - probably meant here in the negative sense of a false god), and he reminded them, by quoting Ps. 82:6, that God himself had called certain Israelites “gods” (John 10:34). With this reply Jesus showed them he could have called himself “a god” in that very same positive sense, and it would have been proper. (His reply, however, would have been nonsensical if the Jews had really said, “you make yourself God”!)
"JW are incorrect to claim ‘a God.’There is no such translation." [from Soapy (#1029)]
….………………………..
The following is a small part of a personal study which proves the use of the accusative theon at John 10:33 should be understood as "a god." Examining the Trinity: THEON - 'RDB's Rule' (Jn 1:18; 10:33) and Examining the Trinity
...............................................
We may safely say, then, that, if theon (the accusative case) in John’s writings (1) is not in a “prepositional” (modified by a genitive or a prepositional phrase) construction and (2) does not come before the verb, then the definite article with it always signifies the only true God (“God”), and its absence signifies someone else (“a god”). If this were not the case, the following statement by a respected trinitarian source would be absolutely senseless. In its analysis of 1 Thess. 1:8 (written by the Apostle Paul who is known to be less careful in article usage than the Gospel writers) A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament states:
“the definite article with theon indicates their faith in the true God and contrasts their present attitude to God with their past pagan attitude to idols.” - Vol. 2, p. 241, Zondervan, 1980.
Now let’s look at John 10:33-36. Notice that theon here does not have a definite article and does not come before the verb, nor is it in a “prepositional” construction. Obviously then (as context also indicates) John 10:33 should be translated “a god” (as in the trinitarian New English Bible) rather than “God” (as in the majority of trinitarian Bibles).
Famous trinitarian Dr. Robert Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, confirms this understanding:
“... ‘makest thyself a god,’ not ‘God’ as in [KJV], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- ‘gods..gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates.”
And it is further admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
“making himself a god.” - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint. (Also see p. 344, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, Newman and Nida, UBS, 1980.)
The Jews were not saying that Jesus was making himself the only true God. They were using theon in its secondary sense of the word (“a god” or “a mighty person”). This secondary, sense of the word was applied in a negative sense to false gods and in a more positive sense to angels, judges, etc. by the Bible writers - (see the BOWGOD and DEF studies).
Jesus’ response also shows that he understood the Jews to be using the word in its secondary sense (not “God” but “a god” - probably meant here in the negative sense of a false god), and he reminded them, by quoting Ps. 82:6, that God himself had called certain Israelites “gods” (John 10:34). With this reply Jesus showed them he could have called himself “a god” in that very same positive sense, and it would have been proper. (His reply, however, would have been nonsensical if the Jews had really said, “you make yourself God”!)
Last edited by a moderator:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Trinitarian believers" are not all on the same page, as many believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God but not literally God.