Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

John 20:28, My Lord and My God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
    This just goes to show that even unrighteousness judges are given the title of θεός. This word has a wide range and function in the bible. It does not always mean “God” (as in the God of Israel).
    "unrighteous..."

    Comment


    • 82:6 אֲֽנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיֹון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃

      ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες (LXX Psalm 81:6)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
        I'm not sure how many readers of this site accept higher criticism. For those that do, it's worth noting that all three of the modern commentaries I have don't think Jesus himself actually said these words. Rather they reflect John's theology, a more complex expression of which is in John 1. That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course.
        There is no a priori objection to HC that I'm aware of, at all. I think what makes people wary of it are its (real or supposed) results. I think it is a logical development of Protestantism, and none the worse for that.

        Given the difference in speech between the Synoptics and JGosp, it makes a lot of sense if in John we have the Evangelist, under the influence of Divine inspiration, expressing the truth about Jesus in his own theology. All the Evangelists have their theologies; there is nothing disreputable about that. The witness of the Fourth Gospel to Jesus is true whether it quotes Jesus & the Apostles verbatim, or not. An inspired Gospel that gives us the theology of the Evangelist, but not the very words of Jesus, is as inspired and Divinely authoritative as an inspired Gospel that gives us the very words of Jesus.

        Comment


        • In scripture:

          Texts tantamount to explicitly declaring that the Holy Spirit is not simply a power, and not the Father exist. e.g. John 15:26 b

          το def art: nom.acc neut sgl the (+ subj.dir obj)
          πνευμα το noun: nom.acc neut sgl ‡ spirit (subj, dir obj) wind
          της def art της : gtv, fem, sgl of?  the
          αληθειας της noun: gtv fem sgl of? ‡   truth
          ο 2 rflxv prnn: nom, neut, sgl which
          παρα 1 prpstn: gtv from
          του def art: gtv, mascneut, sgl of? the
          πατρος του,noun: gtv neut sgl   of? ‡ father
          εκπορευεται vb: prs mid.psv indctv 3ps he.she.it   gets <?> come out
          εκεινος dem prnn: nom masc sgl that one (subj)
          μαρτυρησει vb: ftr act indctv 3ps he.she.it   will testify
          περι PrepstnAcc/gtv about
          εμου pers prnn: gtv of? me

          The Holy Spirit, grammatically, should be referred to with the neuter pronoun. Of 3 occurrences (there may be more) where the masculine pronoun is used with reference to the Holy Spirit, two (John 15:16; 16: 14) should have the neuter pronoun. John 16:13 also has the masculine pronoun, but the antecedent is a masculine noun, "counsellor," for which the masculine pronoun is proper. But for the existence of John 15:16, the occurrence in John 16:14 might be called into question.
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            Paul was certainly writing before the texts of Matthew and Luke came to be written, and given its approximate datings, in all probability before the text of James was composed as well.

            Colossians remains a disputed text for Pauline authenticity while Timothy and the other Pastoral letters are considered by the majority of scholars to be pseudepigraphical.
            Interesting claims. What arguments have been proposed in support?

            Delete anything that says prophecy is impossible - that claim will not be accepted by anyone who has spoken or heard a prophecy and seen it fulfilled.
            Last edited by tabibito; 08-30-2021, 11:40 PM.
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              Interesting claims. What arguments have been proposed in support?
              As noted Colossians remains a disputed text. Arguments against its authenticity have been put by Schenk and Furnish primarily based on the style of writing, the concept of Paul’s role, the Christology, eschatology, and literary dependence. Other such as Barton and Muddiman consider these factors less than compelling.

              The debate continues.

              As to the Pastoral letters, while authorship appears initially it becomes apparent that things are not quite so clear-cut. The organisation of the church under various officers such as bishops and deacons is well advanced and reflects the situation found in Christian writings of the late first and early second century [Clement and Ignatius, Polycarp]. The letters contain none of Paul’s zeal and the immediacy of eschatological expectation that we find in so much of Paul’s authentic writing. In these writing all that is still expected but they focus is on the community and virtues such as piety. Although the teaching is not entirely inward looking there is a focus on the behaviour of members to not draw attention to themselves as part of a new suspect cult. They must conform in every way to the moral standards and expectations of the larger community.

              This clearly places these texts some time after the life of Paul as well as the First Jewish War and possibly into the reign of Trajan.



              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              Delete anything that says prophecy is impossible - that claim will not be accepted by anyone who has spoken or heard a prophecy and seen it fulfilled.
              The eccentric notions of individuals who believe they have prophesied or seen such a claim fulfilled is best left to those with expertise in psychological disorders.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                As noted Colossians remains a disputed text. Arguments against its authenticity have been put by Schenk and Furnish primarily based on the style of writing, the concept of Paul’s role, the Christology, eschatology, and literary dependence. Other such as Barton and Muddiman consider these factors less than compelling.
                Writing style can change rapidly with personal development, and style and the choice of word and can vary in response to the intended audience. Even in Australia, regional dialect might dictate the use of one synonym over another. Syntax too might vary depending on the intended audience. Christology, eschatology, and literary dependence, and Paul's role might have greater weight in the argument - things to be given further consideration.

                The debate continues.

                As to the Pastoral letters, while authorship appears initially it becomes apparent that things are not quite so clear-cut. The organisation of the church under various officers such as bishops and deacons is well advanced and reflects the situation found in Christian writings of the late first and early second century [Clement and Ignatius, Polycarp]. The letters contain none of Paul’s zeal and the immediacy of eschatological expectation that we find in so much of Paul’s authentic writing. In these writing all that is still expected but they focus is on the community and virtues such as piety. Although the teaching is not entirely inward looking there is a focus on the behaviour of members to not draw attention to themselves as part of a new suspect cult. They must conform in every way to the moral standards and expectations of the larger community.
                These are personal letters. Not that I am averse to the arguments, but I would not expect a letter from an author, written one person to another, to conform with that same author's letters written for public consumption.

                This clearly places these texts some time after the life of Paul as well as the First Jewish War and possibly into the reign of Trajan.

                Clarity is in the eye of the beholder, but with regard to the pastoral letters, Paul's authorship must admittedly be considered highly questionable.


                The eccentric notions of individuals who believe they have prophesied or seen such a claim fulfilled is best left to those with expertise in psychological disorders.
                'Tis better to be considered a lunatic or a liar than to actually be a liar, in my opinion.
                Last edited by tabibito; 09-02-2021, 05:38 AM.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                  Interesting claims. What arguments have been proposed in support?

                  Delete anything that says prophecy is impossible - that claim will not be accepted by anyone who has spoken or heard a prophecy and seen it fulfilled.
                  You might want to read the following article from Daniel B. Wallace on this subject:

                  https://bible.org/seriespage/12-colo...gument-outline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                    Writing style can change rapidly with personal development, and style and the choice of word and can vary in response to the intended audience. Even in Australia, regional dialect might dictate the use of one synonym over another. Syntax too might vary depending on the intended audience. Christology, eschatology, and literary dependence, and Paul's role might have greater weight in the argument - things to be given further consideration.
                    As noted the dispute over authenticity for Colossians continues.



                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    These are personal letters. Not that I am averse to the arguments, but I would not expect a letter from an author, written one person to another, to conform with that same author's letters written for public consumption.
                    Their audience is not the issue. It is the content that raises questions. It is generally held that these three texts are be pseudepigraphical.



                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    'Tis better to be considered a lunatic or a liar than to actually be a liar, in my opinion.
                    There are clearly deluded souls who believe they have spoken for future events as well as those who believe certain prophesies have been fulfilled, but as noted, their issues are best dealt with by those with expertise in psychological disorders.

                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post

                      You might want to read the following article from Daniel B. Wallace on this subject:

                      https://bible.org/seriespage/12-colo...gument-outline
                      A brief skim indicates that the article's author has a reasonable argument. Follow-up is definitely in order.

                      As for Schenk's contribution:

                      Schenk Colossians.jpg

                      επι της γης (upon the Earth) appears more than two hundred times in the Bible. 166 spread through 23
                      books of the Old Testament. The 37 NT occurrences are found in each of the gospels, Acts, Colossians,
                      James, and Revelation. The use of επι της γης is hardly significant for any argument.

                      "the unnatural order" spoken of WRT "bear and grow" doesn't pan out. Mark says "it ([the seed]) yielded
                      a crop, growing and increasing ..." - whence the idea that the order is unnatural? Likewise, the
                      "unnatural order" at Colossians 1:10; bearing fruit in one thing (works), increasing in another (knowledge):
                      "bearing" and "increasing" aren't related. Which leaves Colossians 1:6 as the only verse of the three that
                      might present "bear and grow" in an unnatural order. Even here though, it is the gospel which bears and
                      grows: which is pretty much what things do, first growing (karpophoreo) and then waxing bigger (auxano).
                      Note also that karpophoreo does not appear in Mark.

                      A brief skim of Schank's contribution to theology is hopefully not representative of his general approach.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 09-02-2021, 07:45 AM.
                      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Quantum Weirdness, 08-29-2021, 04:29 PM
                      6 responses
                      108 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post rogue06
                      by rogue06
                       
                      Started by Christian3, 09-09-2017, 10:08 AM
                      369 responses
                      50,175 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post tabibito  
                      Working...
                      X