Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[kjw47]

Such as maybe with the JW's?

Such as "judge ye not..." that all too many JW's virtually ignore?

JW,s arent the judge. Just sharers of truth. The truth the world murdered Jesus and his followers back then for. The world does not like Gods truths.
I share facts--That is not judging. The world is oblivious to the facts. They live an illusion.

 

[metis]

JW,s arent the judge.

Then maybe stop judging.

The world does not like Gods truths.

Nonsense, since there are a great many in the world that do believe in God and Jesus, so maybe stop thinking that the JW's are the "only game in town".

I share facts--That is not judging.

You only "share facts" as you think you understand them. Are you omniscient? If not, then maybe realize that this universe and God are a lot bigger than you and I.

The world is oblivious to the facts. They live an illusion

But you and your fellow JW"s don't, right?

Maybe it's time for you and your fellow JW's to get over yourselves and actually follow what Jesus taught when he said "judge ye not...". IOW, you are not believing in Jesus if you continue to do the judging that is God's domain as Jesus taught. Even Paul said he wasn't willing to judge himself, and yet here you are strutting like a peacock telling us all who is and who is not believing in Jesus.

 

[kjw47]

Then maybe stop judging.


Nonsense, since there are a great many in the world that do believe in God and Jesus, so maybe stop thinking that the JW's are the "only game in town".
You only "share facts" as you think you understand them. Are you omniscient? If not, then maybe realize that this universe and God are a lot bigger than you and I.

But you and your fellow JW"s don't, right?

Maybe it's time for you and your fellow JW's to get over yourselves and actually follow what Jesus taught when he said "judge ye not...". IOW, you are not believing in Jesus if you continue to do the judging that is God's domain as Jesus taught. Even Paul said he wasn't willing to judge himself, and yet here you are strutting like a peacock telling us all who is and who is not believing in Jesus.

Gods written word has allready judged all. Its what Jesus will go by during judgement.

 

[Clear]

MORE EXAMPLES FROM ANCIENT GREEK THAT SHOW ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ ("Character") DID NOT MEAN THE SAME AS ΑΚΡΙΤΙΚΟΣ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΟΣ (EXACT "REPRESENTATION")

Oeste claimed : THAT IS WHAT DICTONARIES ARE FOR...TO GIVE WORD MEANINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CONTEXT!!!

In posts #1079 and #1080, we have seen multiple examples from Milligan that demonstrate the meaning and use of Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek. The examples demonstrate that the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact representation" to those greek speakers at that time in history.

Other Examples that Oeste attempted to bring up were from Delitsch and they also demonstrate the same thing : The lone, uncontexted greek word "Χαρακτηρ" did not mean "exact Χαρακτηρ" to these ancient greek speakers.



THE ONLY ANCIENT GREEK EXAMPLES OESTE TRIED TO OFFER THEMSELVES ALSO REFUTE OESTES CLAIM

Clear said to Oeste "I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.
If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim. (post #904)
Oeste responded : "Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: " in post #906

And then Oeste provided the following cut and past from a commentary regarding Delitsch.



Here is the actual post and examples from the cut and paste examples oeste himself provided :

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

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.


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”.


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” implied exactness”? 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 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?



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?



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” implied exactness 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 "Χαρακτηρ" did not mean "exact χαρακτηρ" (unless we add the adjective "exact" or some other context to the base word.)
Thus, from the very beginning of this discussion, it was always true that if there was "exactness" applied to the base, lone, uncontexted greek word "χαρακτηρ", this exactness was not implied by the word itself, but must come from some external context applied to the word.

Readers : Context is extremely important to language.
This is why Oeste could never answer the very, very simple question "Horse?".
The question does not have sufficient context for Oeste or other readers to answer it.
CONTEXT is basic to accurate and efficient communication.
This is the reason that Oestes new claim regarding meaning that "THAT IS WHAT DICTONARIES ARE FOR...TO GIVE WORD MEANINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CONTEXT!!!" cannot work in accurate and efficient communication. (Even with the simple question "horse?").

Oeste, You have never explained how you are going to support your claim regarding ancient greek in the face of so many examples that refute your claim. Without a single example from all of early greek literature to support your claim, the claim remains dead.



Clear
δρακφινεειω

 

[metis]

Gods written word has allready judged all. Its what Jesus will go by during judgement.

If you believe that, then maybe leave it up to Them.

 

[kjw47]

If you believe that, then maybe leave it up to Them.

Jesus commishioned his followers to share truth. Luke10-- Acts 20:20)

 

[metis]

Jesus commishioned his followers to share truth. Luke10-- Acts 20:20)

It's hypocritical to cite Jesus with one teaching but then to virtually ignore what he says in another and still somehow believe that you're a literalist when it comes to interpretation. And then you also ignore Paul telling us not to judge others as he was not even willing to judge himself.

As for myself, I'm not a literalist, in part because that gets close to idolatry, namely elevating an object to Divine proportions. And before you post it, no, we do not worship statues, other objects, nor Mary.

The reality is that all so many JW's far more believe in the Governing Body than in what Jesus actually taught, and then if one go against the Governing Body's take they could be in trouble with them and possibly other JW's.

 

[kjw47]

It's hypocritical to cite Jesus with one teaching but then to virtually ignore what he says in another and still somehow believe that you're a literalist when it comes to interpretation. And then you also ignore Paul telling us not to judge others as he was not even willing to judge himself.

As for myself, I'm not a literalist, in part because that gets close to idolatry, namely elevating an object to Divine proportions. And before you post it, no, we do not worship statues, other objects, nor Mary.

The reality is that all so many JW's far more believe in the Governing Body than in what Jesus actually taught, and then if one go against the Governing Body's take they could be in trouble with them and possibly other JW's.

Gods word condemns to the core the graven images you call statues.
Kissing and wearing a little metal cross( icon-graven image) is elevating that object. Bowing to a wooden statue is as well. Those graven images can do 0.

This is what Jesus teaches--- John 20:17, Rev 3:12--- Why wont you believe him?

 

[metis]

Gods word condemns to the core the graven images you call statues.

Oh really? Then why did God order Moses to make and put a serpent on his staff at the Reed Sea? And why did God order the Israelites to make and display cherubim & seraphim to put on the Ark of the Covenant? The real issue is whether one can worship such objects, and we are forbidden to do that in Catholicism.

Bowing to a wooden statue is as well. Those graven images can do 0.

Of course they "can do 0". These are reminders, thus not idols.

BTW, do you have a camera and take pictures? Think about it. Ever draw a picture of a human or animal or any other living object? Maybe think about that as well because the Bible doesn't define whether such "graven images" are three dimensional, two dimensional, or both.

Finally, I can't help but notice that you deflected the conversation from you issuing your judgment of others to something entirely different, and this is so typical of many of the JW's here at RF.

So, where are you going to deflect to next, kjw47? Maybe how the Catholic Church causes sunspots? tsunamis? covid-19? Either way, I'm outta here.

 

[Muffled]

It takes believing Jesus, Few that claim to be his followers will believe him. It is sad.

Reality--straight from Jesus--John 20:17, Revelation 3:12.

I believe JW's only believe in the watchtower and their teachers and the hell with Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

Gods written word has allready judged all. Its what Jesus will go by during judgement.

I believe I hope you make it so that Jesus can tell you how wrong you have been.

 

[kjw47]

I believe JW's only believe in the watchtower and their teachers and the hell with Jesus.

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.

 

[Oeste]

One must take the whole bible--Jesus is Gods son-not God--Gods power goes through Jesus,( acts 2:22) making him--a god. or has godlike qualities.

Hi @kjw47,

This certainly does not answer the OP.

In the 2nd line at John 1:1--The true God is called HO Theos( in trinity translation of the greek) The word is NOT called Ho Theos in the last line--Plain Theos= a god. The trinities use plain Theos in the 2nd line in their bible translating= Error. Billions being mislead because of that error.

We weren’t talking about whether John 1:1 should be God or “a god”. In fact, in the OP I asked Trinitarians not to talk about the Trinity at all. Instead I politely asked the Trinitarians on this thread to sit back and quietly listen to a public talk as the JW’s explain how they would defend and reconcile scripture once the Trinity is out of the way. The Trinitarians have complied, yet all you can do is rail against our interpretation of John 1:1. This means we are no further along at answering the OP.

WHAT HAPPENED TO JESUS?

At John 1:1 the apostle John explains Jesus is “a god” according to the NWT, but according to the Watchtower Jesus has to explain to the crowd that he is neither God nor “a god” at John 10:33. Why was it necessary for Jesus to contradict what his own apostle told us at John 1:1? Were they both not on the same page? Did Jesus reprimand John later?

Here is the NWT:

Do you see? Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1!

Now we look at the Watchtower:

Source

This refers to John 10:33. The question specifically asks the reader "WHAT DID JESUS NOT CLAIM TO BE", and if we look at paragraph 66, we get our answer: Jesus did NOT claim to be God or a god!!

Something must have happened during the interim 9 chapters of John 1 through 10 to force Jesus to explain he was neither God nor “a god”, we’re just sitting in rapt attention for you or another JW to explain what it is. But instead of providing us with an explanation we get more attacks against “Christendom’s” translation of John 1:1.

Paul Harvey used to end his talks with “…and now you know the rest of the story”. That’s what we’re waiting for here... the rest of the story. Why are you arguing against a Trinitarian explanation of John 1:1 that isn't here? Tell us “…the rest of the story” and explain how you and the Watchtower managed to reconcile the rest of scripture with itself. That is what the Trinitarians are waiting for. Tell us why Jesus is “a god” in Chapter 1, but no longer “a god” by Chapter 10, preferably after you explain why the Jews thought it blasphemy for Jesus to call himself “a god” to begin with.

Let’s remember what the WT tells us:

Above is one of the main banners on the front web page at JW.org. We know Jesus is no longer “a god” because the WT has assured us we “… can be confident that the facts were thoroughly researched and accurate” and they have “… Love and Respect for Truth”. This is nice to say, but it would be even better if explained.

Ramifications when Jesus is “a god”

We can now compare Jesus to the gods in Greek or Norse mythology. We can compare him to the corrupt Judges of Israel, Caesar, or a host of other gods. The Romans and Greeks would have loved this and accepted Christians immediately. Jehovah is God just as Zeus and Jupiter are God. We can squeeze Jesus in as a Son of Jehovah, right alongside the sons of Jupiter and Zeus. As a human god, he’s just like Caesar, which is fine and dandy as long you keep him god and not your king. What’s that? He’s a righteous god? Then we know he’s more like Thor and less like Loki.

Ramifications when Jesus is not God or “a god”

Well that makes him just as righteous and shady a character as the common man. Good, but perhaps just not as perfect as you claim. After all, he did ask why anyone would call him good, didn’t he?

This invites heretics to openly compare Jesus’s χαρακτήρ (Charaktér) to every Joe and Harry (Jason and Hector- Greek ) on the block, much like Clear has been advocating for the last few hundred posts or so. I would have loved to see how JW’s respond to his charge that the WT erroneously translated χαρακτήρ as “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3 while at the same time defending their charge he was “a god” at John 1:1, whilst no longer God or a god at Hebrews 10:33. Trinitarians can slam doors like this shut when Jesus is God, but the door remains wide open when he’s “a god” or not “a god” at all.

I think I’ve been pretty fair, offering JW’s a golden opportunity to explain the rest of scripture without the “hindrance” of the Trinity. But instead of some thoughtful, researched, alternative Christology we are left with basic questions which simply can’t be answered. Even worse, it appears the entire Watchtower organization and theology has been built from the ground up to attack “Christendom” but offers little to defend the word of God. So if a heretic were to grab the mic and exclaim the New World's translation of "χαρακτήρ" (Charaktér) is just as wrong as “Christendom” they are caught completely defenseless, unprepared, and without rebuttal. In short they go silent and pretend they see nor hear it.

Without an overarching strategy to defend scripture in its entirety it’s hard to see how a Christianity based on WT theology would have made it past the relentless onslaught posed by the heretics of the first 3 centuries, let alone to the 21st. IMO, this thread has gone a long way toward demonstrating why those organizations that concentrate on defending doctrine rather than scripture have and will eventually continue to plateau and fizzle out.

 

[Oeste]

Why, then, if John really meant that Jesus is the One True God, didn’t he use the definite article at John 1:1c ? Because, as he did with other terms sometimes used for Jesus (“prophet,” “king”), he intended for them to be taken as indefinite nouns (“a prophet,” “a king,” and “a god”) when the article was not used.

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.​

I suspect this will lead to more confusion than light though, especially since it would certainly ruptures any parallels between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 and get people to wondering just how many Gods and Johns there are in scripture. The Mormons might actually like this, but as I've already shown, they're pretty much committed to "God" rather than "a God" at John 1:1 and their inspired prophet has already signed off on it... despite @Clear's personal but uninspired protests for the contrary.

All this is unnecessary however. There is no need to argue against the Trinity on this thread. No need to argue for a capital "G" at John 1:1. My fellow Trinitarians may grit their teeth, stop their mouth, and look at me with wounded expressions, but I was hoping to avoid having this become just another Trinity thread. Instead I've told them we could be on the cusp of learning something new if we show just a little more patience and can withstand the casual, knee jerk barbs thrown at the Trinity.

All we’re trying to do is entertain another point of view, and see how we would validly reconcile scripture with the Trinity no longer in the picture... just like Jehovah Witnesses have managed to do.

For instance, the NWT tells us that Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 but the WT tells us Jesus TOLD the crowd he was neither God nor “a god” at John 10:33. How did Jesus go from being “a god” at John 1:1 to telling the temple crowd he’s no longer God or “a god” at John 10:30-33? Did something happen to Jesus in the interim?

We also see the temple crowd has picked up stones. When Jesus asks why, they tell him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” John 10:33 NWT

Since it's blasphemy they are accusing Jesus of, shouldn’t this read “...make yourself God” rather than “....make yourself a god”? Even if the temple Jews misunderstood Jesus, it should still read "God" because there's no blasphemy under the Law when you declare yourself "a god". There's only blasphemy when you abuse the Divine Name and that always comes with a capital "G", except, for some reason, at John 10:33.

 

[Oeste]

Does your statement represent an Admission that "Character" does not mean "Exact Character" unless context is added?

No. For the seventh or eighth time it means I'm not aware of anyone who uses the words "exact character" in their translation at Hebrews 1:3. Exact representation, yes. Exact reproductions, yes. Express image, yes. Very image, yes.

This is redundant an repetitive.

Because the word "Character" in greek IS the word you claim means "exact representation".
Englilsh "Character" comes from the Greek work Χαρακτηρ, they sound the same, they are the same.

So it's the exact "Character" in both languages..

Thank you!

χαρακτηρ (the Greek word rendered “representation” in this case) is different than and does not mean χαρακτηρα ακριβης (“exact representation” in greek).

I get it!

Just like χαρακτηρ (the Greek word rendered “engraver” in this case) is different than and does not mean χαρακτηρα εργαλείο (“engraver's tool” in Greek)???

If so, why does Milligan tell us it means both "engraver's tool" and "exact reproduction"?

Just as in English the word “representation” does not mean “exact representation”, the Greek word for “representation” does not mean “exact representation” without adding the additional word “exact’ or some other modification (such as additional context).

Just as in English the word "engraver" does not mean "engraver's tool", the Greek word for "engraver" does not mean "engraver's tool" without adding the additional word "tool" or some other modification (such as additional context}???

Why do you think Milligan went ahead and did it anyways?

You, yourself demonstrated this with your example using the word “horse” that showed you were unable specify the uncontexted lone word “horse” without adding additional words as context.

No Clear. I simply demonstrated "horse" all by its lonesome, has several meanings all by itself. Context simply tells us "which" meaning out of the meanings horse already has.

Your own example is a wonderful refutation of your claim.

Lol, you are too funny Clear!

I can see you need another "walk through".

But it's already 1:49 am and I am not staying up late just to repeat redundant points. I'm extremely busy, still working, so I'll have to finish up tomorrow.

 

[Clear]

Hi Oeste

1) THE PROBLEM OF LACK OF A SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE YOUR CLAIM IS CORRECT.
You still failed to answer the questions you were actually asked about the many actual greek examples.
We have been given many specific examples of ancient Greek usage by Milligan and Delitsch and Clement and Leviticus and none of them support your claim.
While these examples refute your claim, you have never been able to offer a single example of ancient Greek usage that supports your claim.
This is still a problem.


2) THE PROBLEM OF MULTIPLE EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING YOUR CLAIM IS INCORRECT BUT NO EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS CORRECT.
You admit that "Χαρακτηρ" does not mean "exact Χαρακτηρ" but tell us in the ancient greek the lone, uncontexted word "χαρακτηρ" does mean "exact representation"
You claim the word could have meant "exactness" independent of context
I say it must have additional context before it can mean "exact" representation in actual ancient greek usage.
While we can produce many example in ancient or modern greek to refute your theory, you cannot produce a single example where your claim is true.
This is still a problem.


3) THE PROBLEM WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF CONTEXT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AND CLARIFY ADDITIONAL MEANINGS

Your attempt to demonstrate words can convey specific meaning in communication WITHOUT CONTEXT refutes itself.

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)

You then inadvertently demonstrated MY claim that additional context was needed. :

Below is your example. The single word “Horse” is in BLUE and the additional context your were required to give readers is in RED.

Your 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.”

Readers can generate endless examples where "horse" can have specific, and clear meaning by adding additional context.
You are unable to offer a single example where you can communicate clear and specific meaning of your example word "horse" and differentiate it from cocaine a rock formation without additional context.
This is still a problem for your new theory that one can communicate the meaning of words to another without additional context.
Also note : "opposing cavalry" is not a dictionary definition for the word "horse". Words can have meanings outside of the dictionary meanings. Still CONTEXT provides that additional meaning.


4) THE PROBLEM WITH INABILITY TO DISMISS ACTUAL GREEK USAGE THAT REFUTES IMPLIED "EXACTNESS"
You still have not answered the questions you were posed in post 1076, 1079 and 1080 where Milligan and Delitsch give examples where your claim to "exactness" does not work.
You still have been unable to support your claims regarding actual usage of ancient greek

Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16
Clear said : "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.
This has been my claim regarding the ancient word χαρακτηρ.


Oeste said : "We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16.
Clear pointed out : "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.
Oeste replied : "I have no problem with large data pools or lakes.
While milligan and delitsch, clement, leviticus HAVE provided data demonstrating your claim is incorrect, you have not provided a single example from ancient greek where your claim IS correct.
You do not have a "lake" or a "pond" or even a drop of data from actual ancient greek to support your claim (so far).




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.

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
φιτζακσεω

 

[TiggerII]

Reply to Oeste #1093

“At John 1:1 the apostle John explains Jesus is ‘a god’ according to the NWT, but according to the Watchtower Jesus has to explain to the crowd that he is neither God nor “a god” at John 10:33. Why was it necessary for Jesus to contradict what his own apostle told us at John 1:1? Were they both not on the same page? Did Jesus reprimand John later?”

….

Here is the NWT:

View attachment 51488


Do you see? Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1!

Now we look at the Watchtower:

View attachment 51487

Source

This refers to John 10:33. The question specifically asks the reader "WHAT DID JESUS NOT CLAIM TO BE", and if we look at paragraph 66, we get our answer: Jesus did NOT claim to be God or a god!!”

….………………………………..

The quote you refer to from a 1962 WT:

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.” Jesus had been speaking to the Jews about God as being his Father, which would mean that he, Jesus, was the Son of God. Jesus said to them: “No one will snatch them [my sheep] out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one.”

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! 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.

However, Since Jesus is replying to the Jews accusation that he makes himself 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. But even though this is true, he does not actually claim that.

Many trinitarian scholars admit that angels and God-appointed men are called gods in scripture.

 

[TiggerII]

From Oeste’s response to my #1061:

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.

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
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"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite and with the indefinite article ("a/an")! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)

These would include:

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

Why, then, if John really meant that Jesus is the One True God, didn’t he use the definite article at John 1:1c ? Because, as he did with other terms sometimes used for Jesus (“prophet,” “king”), he intended for them to be taken as indefinite nouns (“a prophet,” “a king,” and “a god”) when the article was not used.

It should also be pointed out that 3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a very similar construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here! This is a clear (and very significant) “violation” of “Colwell’s Rule”! - Cf. Judges 6:31 (and Ezek. 28:2 in many Bibles.)

Using the above trinitarian grammarian-approved examples should allow the average objective person To find the truth of John's use of the Greek in John 1:1c - "And the Word was a god."

from my study on my blog: Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c

As for the use of "a god" by John,
This is a fact acknowledged by even most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

(also John 10:34, 35 - NEB; CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

Not only does the literal grammar of John 1:1c translate into English as "a god", but all proper examples of parallel constructions by John are translated as indefinite nouns ("a prophet," "a king," etc.)

….………………….

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.

 

[Clear]

Hi @tigger2 and @Oeste

Regarding Oestes greek example in post #1094 in response to tigger2s greek parallels

Oeste said : "There came a man who was sent as a representative of a God; his name was a John." (post #1094)
Tigger2 responded : "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." (post #1098)

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).
It is such basic errors which led me to assume Oeste was unfamiliar with Greek despite his assurance that he comprehends greek.

It made no sense to me to be able to be familiar with greek but not be able to offer examples of one's position in greek (if one takes a position on the use of greek).
For example : 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.
I have asked multiple times for clarification and justification for Oeste having made such a bizarre claim.

Oeste, If you can actually discuss your claims regarding Greek, with CORRECT greek examples, that would be helpful. So far, in my discussion with you, you have been given multiple examples from ancient greek where your claim is incorrect but you have been (so far) unable to give readers even a single solitary example from greek where your claim is correct.


I will be interested to understand why you used such an incorrect example in greek in response to tigger2s perfectly correct examples of greek usage.

In any case Oeste and Tigger2, I hope both of your journeys in life are good and insightful.

Clear
φιτζδρακτωω

 

[Oeste]

"ALL THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT"

a proverb by Lady Mary Montgomerie Currie, who used to write under her pseudonym, Violet Fane.

The proverb is not always true but it certainly appears to have come true here. @Clear has weighed in on @tigger2's post. But first, as usual, we must correct some of Clear's more questionable comments and observations.

Oeste said : "There came a man who was sent as a representative of a God; his name was a John." (post #1094)
Tigger2 responded : "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." (post #1098)

This was one of the problems I also had in trying to discuss ancient greek with Oeste.

Actually this is one of the problem I have when trying to discuss anything, including ancient Greek with @Clear.

He partially lifts a quote to misrepresent what I posted. The most important section of my post is missing. This way he can argue against the partially lifted quote more effectively. Let's put this very important part, the part Clear appears to have missed, back:

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.

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. If you can't "see and understand that then there is very little point in discussing anything with you. I will refute your points and then we will be done. In fact, I'll set things up so others can easily refute your points for you. Is that okay?

I noticed I told you yesterday I would be back today to finish up:

But it's already 1:49 am and I am not staying up late just to repeat redundant points. I'm extremely busy, still working, so I'll have to finish up tomorrow.

But instead of patience I get another avalanche of redundant posts claiming I haven't answered you yet (even though I have). I am very busy. I run my own business. I have family, but I take the time to converse with you because I know and understand no one else will take the time to do that, and that apparently includes your own Church.

I do not care if people here do not appreciate my efforts here Clear, but I must insist they respect them. I am not retired and I very little in the way of "spare time". I would love to sit back and enjoy a marathon this summer.

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).

Of course its in error! But I'm not the one translating and I'm not the one making the rule ... I'm expecting to see this translation from the WT based on Tigger2's rule.

I think I was pretty clear on that.

It made no sense to me to be able to be familiar with greek but not be able to offer examples of one's position in greek (if one takes a position on the use of greek).
For example : 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.

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? We haven't finished our conversation concerning "horse". I intend to do that tonight. I'll get to Syll 226, an issue I've already addressed, in more detail as time permits. But right now I intend to address Tigger2's post.