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

Who is Jesus? (not a theological question)

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

  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
    I doubt he is interested in discussing this with a cool head or with clear thinking.
    He seems focused on trying to prove I do not believe the Trinity even though I said that I do and gave evidence from elsewhere for it. See Posts 49 and 50.
    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd-Jesus/page5
    It's a rather puzzling thread. In reply to your colossal opening post, he uses the same argument that Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses use in an attempt to challenge the deity of Christ when, he states the following:

    'And yet all Christian denominations that I have encountered (except for the Sabeelianisers = oneness churches) teach that we we pray to God (the Father) through Jesus Christ...after all Jesus taught us to pray to "Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be thou name", and it is the Father's kingdom that Jesus taught us to pray for...(note 1 Cor 15, in the end times the Son subjects himeslf to his Father)...'
    A rather course sandpaper 'apostoli' is using, to expound the text. Hmm?

    Leave a comment:


  • foudroyant
    replied
    Originally posted by Catman View Post
    foudroyant,

    While you're thinking about your answer, I notice too that you are engaged in a discussion, argument debate regarding the worship of Jesus with 'apostoli' I couldn't imagine that anyone who has read Revelation, would conclude otherwise. (or for that matter, the gospels)
    Perhaps you might invite 'apostoli' to come on over here, and let us help with of those troubling texts. i.e : 1 Corinthians 15:24 ?

    Catman
    I doubt he is interested in discussing this with a cool head or with clear thinking.
    He seems focused on trying to prove I do not believe the Trinity even though I said that I do and gave evidence from elsewhere for it. See Posts 49 and 50.
    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd-Jesus/page5

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    I'll make this my final post to this thread.

    Rather than starting another, which is what I nearly did, I'm going to post up what I believe the Lord God led me too - in answer to my prayers (questions) here.

    “You are a priest forever,
    after the order of Melchizedek.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions, or objecting to their being discussed; I just don't see a specific question pertaining to biblical languages, grammar, syntax, etc. I suppose we could look at the semantic range of 'greater' in Greek and look at the Johannine or Pauline contexts, which should be done separately.

    <edit>

    Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.
    Essentially, if you could do what Dana Scott did with Kurt Gφdel’s proof of God’s existence -- it'd really make a big difference. I'm afraid what you have posted, might be fine for Greek scholars -- but for most of us folks who just want to understand what the passages meant, a simple rendering and clear commentary which I have already presented for (John 14:28 + commentary) and (1 Corinthians 15:24 + commentary) will do.



    In earnest,
    Catman

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    robrecht,
    Is there any way you can break this down into something that I can, as a non-Greek student, get my head around. It's like reading advanced Mathematics?

    Catman.

    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions, or objecting to their being discussed; I just don't see a specific question pertaining to biblical languages, grammar, syntax, etc. I suppose we could look at the semantic range of 'greater' in Greek and look at the Johannine or Pauline contexts, which should be done separately.

    μέγα^ς , μεγάλη [α^], μέγα^, gen. μεγάλου, ης, ου, dat. μεγάλῳ, ῃ, ῳ, acc. μέγα^ν, μεγάλην, μέγα^; dual μεγάλω, α, ω; pl. μεγάλοι, μεγάλαι, μεγάλα, etc.: the stem μεγάλο- is never used in sg. nom. and acc. masc. and neut., and only once in voc. masc.,

    A.“ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ” A.Th. 822 (anap.).

    I. big, of bodily size: freq. of stature, “εἶδος. . μ. ἦν ὁράασθαι” Od.18.4; “κεῖτο μ. μεγαλωστί”
    Il.16.776; “ἠΰς τε μ. τε” Od.9. 508; φῶτα μέγαν καὶ καλόν ib.513; “καλή τε μεγάλη τε” 15.418; “κάρτα μεγάλη καὶ εὐειδής” Hdt.3.1; φύσιν τίν᾽ εἶχε φράζε; Answ. “μέγας” S.OT742.

    b. full-grown, of age as shown by stature, “νῦν δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μ. εἰμί” Od.2.314; “μήτε μέγαν μήτ᾽ οὖν νεαρῶν τινα” A.Ag.358 (anap.); later, elder of two persons of the same name, Wilcken Chr.305 (iii B. C.); “Σκιπίων ὁ μ.” Plb.18.35.9.

    c. of animals, μ. ἵπποι, βοῦς, σῦς, Il.2.839, 18.559, Od.19.439; “αἰετός” Pi.I.6(5).50.

    2. generally, vast, high, οὐρανός, ὄρος, πύργος, Il.1.497, 16.297, 6.386; wide, πέλαγος, λαῖτμα θαλάσσης, Od.3.179, 5.174; long, ἠϊών, αἰγιαλός, Il.12.31,2.210: sts. opp. “ὀλίγος, κῦμα οὔτε μέγ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ὀ.” Od.10.94; but usu. opp. μικρός or “σμικρός, πρὸς ἑαυτὸ ἕκαστον καὶ μ. καὶ σμικρόν” Anaxag. 3; “τὸ ἄπειρον ἐκ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ” Arist.Metaph.987b26, etc.

    II. of quality or degree, great, mighty, freq. epith. of gods, “ὁ μ. Ζεύς” A. Supp.1052 (lyr.), etc.; μεγάλα θεά, of Demeter and Persephone, S. OC683 (lyr.); θεοὶ μεγάλοι, of the Cabiri, IG12(8).71 (Imbros), etc.; Μήτηρ μ., of Cybele, SIG1014.83 (Erythrae, iii B. C.), 1138.3 (Delos, ii B. C.); “Μήτηρ θεῶν μ.” OGI540.6 (Pessinus), etc.; “Ἴσιδος μ. μητρὸς θεῶν” PStrassb.81.14 (ii B.C.); “μ. ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων” Act.Ap.19.28; τίς θεὸς μ. ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν; LXX Ps.76(77).13; “ὁ μ. θεός” Ep.Tit.2.13; of men, “μ. ἠδὲ κραταιός” Od.18.382; “ὀλίγος καὶ μ.” Callin.1.17, etc.; μέγας ηὐξήθη rose to greatness, D.2.5; ἤρθη μ. ib.8; βασιλεὺς ὁ μ., i. e. the King of Persia, Hdt.1.188, etc. (θεῶν β. ὁ μ., of Zeus, Pi.O. 7.34); “βασιλεὺς μ.” A.Pers.24 (anap.); as a title of special monarchs, “Ἀρδιαῖος ὁ μ.” Pl.R.615c; “ὁ μ. Ἀλέξανδρος” Ath.1.3d; “ὁ μ. ἐπικληθεὶς Ἀντίοχος” Plb.4.2.7, etc.; “μ. φίλος” E.Med.549; “πλούτῳ τε κἀνδρείᾳ μ.” Id.Tr.674; “ἐπὶ μέγα ἦλθεν ἰσχύος” Th.2.97.

    2. strong, of the elements, etc., ἄνεμος, λαῖλαψ, Ζέφυρος, Od.19.200, 12.408, 14.458; of properties, passions, qualities, feelings, etc., of men, θάρσος, πένθος, ποθή, etc., 9.381, Il.1.254, 11.471, etc.; “ἀρετή” Od.24.193, Pi. O.8.5; “θυμός” Il.9.496, E.Or.702; “κλέος” Il.6.446; “ἄχος” 9.9; “πυρετός” Ev.Luc.4.38 (incorrect acc. to Gal.7.275); ἡ μ. νοῦσος epilepsy, Hp. Epid.6.6.5, cf. Gal.17(2).341.

    3. of sounds, great, loud, ἀλαλητός, ἰαχή, πάταγος, ὀρυμαγδός, Il.12.138, 15.384, 21.9, 256; θόρυβοι, κωκυτός, S.Aj.142 (anap.), E.Med.1176; “οὐκ ἔστι ὅκως τι νεῖκος ἔσται ἢ μέγα ἢ σμικρόν” Hdt.3.62; “μὴ φώνει μέγα” S.Ph.574.

    4. generally, great, mighty, “ὅρκος” Il.19.113; ὄλβος, τιμά, Pi.O.1.56, P.4.148; μ. λόγος, μῦθος, a great story, rumour, A.Pr.732, S.Aj.226 (lyr.); ἐρώτημα a big, i. e. difficult, question, Pl.Euthd.275d, Hp.Ma. 287b; weighty, important, “τόδε μεῖζον” Od.16.291; μέγα ποιέεσθαί τι to esteem of great importance, Hdt.3.42, cf. 9.111; “μέγα γενέσθαι εἴς τι” X.HG7.5.6; “μ. ὑπάρχειν πρός τι” Id.Mem.2.3.4; “μέγα διαφέρειν εἴς τι” Pl.Lg.78oc; οὐκ ἂν εἴη παρὰ μέγα τὸ δικολογεῖν not of great importance, Phld.Rh.2.85 S.; τὸ δὲ μέγιστον and what is most important, Th.4.70, cf. 1.142; οἱ μέγιστοι καιροί the most pressing emergencies, D.20.44; μ. ὠνησάμενοι χρημάτων for large sums, Plb. 4.50.3, etc.

    5. with a bad sense, over-great, μέγα εἰπεῖν to speak big, and so provoke divine wrath, Od.22.288; “λίην μέγα εἶπες” 3.227, 16.243; “μέγα ἔργον” 3.261, Pi.N.10.64; “ἔργων μ.” A.Ag.1546 (anap.); “ὠμὸν τὸ βούλευμα καὶ μ.” Th.3.36; ἔπος μ., μ. λόγοι, S.Aj. 423 (lyr.), Ant.1350 (anap.); μ. γλῶσσα ib.127 (anap.); “μηδὲν μέγ᾽ εἴπῃς” Id.Aj.386; “μὴ μέγα λέγε” Pl.Phd.95b; “μὴ μεγάλα λίαν λέγε” Ar.Ra.835; “μέγα φρονεῖν” S.OT1078, E.Hipp.6; “μεγάλα φρονεῖν” Ar.Ach.988; μεγάλα, μεῖζον ἢ δικαίως πνεῖν, E.Andr.189, A.Ag.376 (lyr.); “μέγα τι παθεῖν” X.An.5.8.17; “μὴ μέγα λέγων μεῖζον πάθῃς” E. HF1244.

    6. of style. impressive, Demetr.Eloc.278; μεῖζον more striking, ib.103.

    7. of days, long, Gal.12.714.
    B. Adv. μεγάλως [α^] greatly, mightily, Od.16.432, Hes.Th. 429, Hdt.1.16,30, al., X.Cyr.8.2.10, Parth.28.1, etc.; strengthd., “μάλα μ.” Il.17.723; “δμαθέντες μ.” A.Pers.907 (lyr.); with Adjs., Hdt. 1.4, 7.190.

    II. more freq. neut. sg. μέγα as Adv., very much, exceedingly, μ. χαῖρε all hail!, v. l. for μάλα in Od.24.402; esp. with Verbs expressing strong feeling, “μ. κεν κεχαροίατο” Il.1.256; “μ. κήδεται” 2.27, etc.: with Verbs expressing power, might, “μ. πάντων . . κρατέει” 1.78; “ὃς μ. πάντων. . ἤνασσε” 10.32; “πατρὸς μ. δυναμένοιο” Od.1.276, cf. Hom.Epigr.15.1, A.Eu.950 (anap.), E.Hel.1358 (lyr.), Ar.Ra.141, Pl.R.366a; “μ. δύνασθαι παρά τινι” Th.2.29; “πλουτέειν μ.” Hdt.1.32; or those expressing sound, loudly, μ. ἰάχειν, ἀῧσαι, βοῆσαι, εὔξασθαι, ἀμβῶσαι, Il.2.333, 14.147, 17.334, Od.17.239, Hdt.1.8 (also pl., “μεγάλ᾽ εὔχετο” Il.1.450; μ. αὐδήσαντος, μ. ἤπυεν, Od.4.505, 9.399): strengthd., “μάλα μ.” Il.15.321; “μ. δ᾽ ἔβραχε φήγινος ἄξων” 5.838, etc.: so in Trag. with all kinds of Verbs, μ. στένειν, σθένειν, χλίειν,
    A.Ag.711 (lyr.), 938, Ch.137: also in pl., “μεγάλα. . δυστυχεῖς” Id.Eu.791 (lyr.).

    2. of Space, far, “μέγα προθορών” Il.14.363; ἄνευθε μέγα far away, 22.88; “οὐκ ἂν μέγα τι τῆς ἀληθείας παρεξέλθοις” Pl.Phlb.66b.

    3. with Adjs., as μέγ᾽ ἔξοχος, μέγα νήπιος, Il.2.480, 16.46; μ. νήπιε Orac. ap. Hdt.1.85; “μ. πλούσιος” Id.1.32, 7.190; “ὦ μέγ᾽ εὔδαιμον κόρη” A.Pr.647: with Comp. and Sup., by far, μέγ᾽ ἀμείνονες, ἄριστος, φέρτατος, Il.4.405, 2.82, 16.21.

    C. degrees of Comparison (regul. μεγαλώτερος, -ώτατος late, EM780.1,2):

    1. Comp. μείζων, ον, gen. ονος, Ep., Att. (also Delph., SIG246 H260 (iv B. C.)); Ion., Arc., Dor., Aeol. μέζων, ον, Heraclit. 25, Hp.Acut.44, Hdt.1.26, IG7.235.16 (Oropus), 5(2).3.18 (Tegea), Epich.62 (also early Att., IG12.22.65, but [με] ίζων ib.6.93, by analogy of ὀλείζων ib.76,95); dat. pl. “μεζόνεσσι” Diotog. ap. Stob.4.7.62: written μέσδων in Sapph.Supp.7.6, Plu.Lyc.19: cf. μέττον: μεῖζον, Hsch. (dub.); later “μειζότερος” 3 Ep.Jo.4 (used as title, elder, POxy. 943.3 (vi A. D.), etc.); “μειζονώτερος” A.Fr.434:—greater, longer, taller, Il.3.168, 9.202, etc.; freq. also, too great, “γέρας” Pl.Sph.231a; Μηνόφιλος μείζων M. the elder, Ostr.Bodl.vC 2 (ii A. D.); as title, μειζων κώμης headman of a village, POxy.1626.5 (iv A. D.), etc.: generally, the higher authority, PLond.2.214.22 (iii A. D.), POxy.1204.17 (pl., iii A. D.); οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτε ἔλαττον, a strong form of denial, nothing whatever, D.H.Comp.4; “οὐδαμὰ προὔφηνεν οὔτε μείζον᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐλάττονα” S.Tr.324. Adv. “μειζόνως” E.Hec.1121, Th.1.130, X.Cyn.13.3, Isoc.9.21, etc.; Ion. “μεζόνως” Hdt.3.128, Herod.4.80, etc.: neut. as Adv., “μεῖζον σθένειν” S.Ph.456, E.Supp.216; “μ. ἰσχύειν” D.Ep.3.28; “ἐπὶ μ. ἔρχεται” S.Ph.259.

    2. Sup. μέγιστος, η, ον, Il.2.412, etc.: neut. as Adv., “μέγιστον ἴσχυσε” S.Aj.502; δυνάμενος μ., c. gen., Hdt.7.5, 9.9: with another Sup., “μέγιστον ἐχθίστη” E.Med.1323: in pl., “χαῖρ᾽ ὡς μέγιστα” S.Ph.462; “θάλλει μ.” Id.OC700 (lyr.); “τὰ μέγιστ᾽ ἐτιμάθης” Id.OT1203 (lyr.); ἐς μέγιστον ib.521; “ἐς τὰ μ.” Hdt.8.111:—late Sup. “μεγιστότατος” PLond.1.130.49 (i/ii A. D.). (Cf. Skt. majmαn- 'greatness', Lat. magnus, Goth. mikils 'great'.)

    Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    foudroyant,

    While you're thinking about your answer, I notice too that you are engaged in a discussion, argument debate regarding the worship of Jesus with 'apostoli' I couldn't imagine that anyone who has read Revelation, would conclude otherwise. (or for that matter, the gospels)
    Perhaps you might invite 'apostoli' to come on over here, and let us help with of those troubling texts. i.e : 1 Corinthians 15:24 ?

    Catman

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
    When the situation does occur what is your method of doing so?
    I guess it helps to be prepared (the old Scout boy motto), for now days folks are often fairly well read. It's easy enough for anyone to pick up a copy of Earl Doherty's book entitled 'The Jesus Puzzle : Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ? Challenging The Existence of an Historical Jesus, or anyone of Bart Ehrman's easy reads -- and be as armed as any 'knock-on-door-Crusader'* -- who are normally well programmed to plant enough questions in the minds of the uninformed mind. (include Richard Carrier and Robert Price in this group.)

    Though one might be able to engage in some form of discussion, argument or debate with someone who's packing an historical charge against the whole idea of the deity of Jesus -- the battle is seldom won in the whits, and more often won in the heart. C.S. Lewis' transformation from God believer, to believing that Jesus is the Son of God, is a very good example of that sort of mystical transformation.

    Personally, I think there are only a few paths that I would take with a person who holds to that position. I'd ask them to read the gospel according to John, whilst engaging in prayers for them to encounter the person of Jesus. I'd try to build a friendship with them, and invite them to meet the larger circle of my Christian brothers and sisters. (it could be more intimate than that, and often is.)

    Of course, not everyone these days can be invited around (for we are in cyberspace now) -- so I'd probably mention some of the passages where Jesus discusses his identity, as well as one or two from the book of Revelation.

    However, as most folks think the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of religious-fanatics spouting God-speak, I think the greatest difficult would be to convince them it was a reliable source. There are a few good scholars, I'd recommend they read. i.e. D.A. Carson, Ben Witherington and Larry Hurtado - fine scholars, who've written quite convincingly on these matters and others. (obviously there are many, many more!)

    It's never an easy thing to do, but I guess we are not in the business of trying to make people believe, but to bring them as close as possible to the water of life as we can, without shoving them there. It takes a wisdom (from God) to do this -- and who does it well may be fortunate enough to say they have 'led someone to the Lord'

    Might I ask you the same question?

    Catman.

    ---
    *Jehovah's Witnesses

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Thank you so much, for making this readable. I look forward, to any further details you have to share with us -- with regard to 'the Johannine or Pauline contexts' -- Catman.

    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions, or objecting to their being discussed; I just don't see a specific question pertaining to biblical languages, grammar, syntax, etc. I suppose we could look at the semantic range of 'greater' in Greek and look at the Johannine or Pauline contexts, which should be done separately.

    μέγα^ς , μεγάλη [α^], μέγα^, gen. μεγάλου, ης, ου, dat. μεγάλῳ, ῃ, ῳ, acc. μέγα^ν, μεγάλην, μέγα^; dual μεγάλω, α, ω; pl. μεγάλοι, μεγάλαι, μεγάλα, etc.: the stem μεγάλο- is never used in sg. nom. and acc. masc. and neut., and only once in voc. masc.,

    A.“ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ” A.Th. 822 (anap.).

    I. big, of bodily size: freq. of stature, “εἶδος. . μ. ἦν ὁράασθαι” Od.18.4; “κεῖτο μ. μεγαλωστί”
    Il.16.776; “ἠΰς τε μ. τε” Od.9. 508; φῶτα μέγαν καὶ καλόν ib.513; “καλή τε μεγάλη τε” 15.418; “κάρτα μεγάλη καὶ εὐειδής” Hdt.3.1; φύσιν τίν᾽ εἶχε φράζε; Answ. “μέγας” S.OT742.

    b. full-grown, of age as shown by stature, “νῦν δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μ. εἰμί” Od.2.314; “μήτε μέγαν μήτ᾽ οὖν νεαρῶν τινα” A.Ag.358 (anap.); later, elder of two persons of the same name, Wilcken Chr.305 (iii B. C.); “Σκιπίων ὁ μ.” Plb.18.35.9.

    c. of animals, μ. ἵπποι, βοῦς, σῦς, Il.2.839, 18.559, Od.19.439; “αἰετός” Pi.I.6(5).50.

    2. generally, vast, high, οὐρανός, ὄρος, πύργος, Il.1.497, 16.297, 6.386; wide, πέλαγος, λαῖτμα θαλάσσης, Od.3.179, 5.174; long, ἠϊών, αἰγιαλός, Il.12.31,2.210: sts. opp. “ὀλίγος, κῦμα οὔτε μέγ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ὀ.” Od.10.94; but usu. opp. μικρός or “σμικρός, πρὸς ἑαυτὸ ἕκαστον καὶ μ. καὶ σμικρόν” Anaxag. 3; “τὸ ἄπειρον ἐκ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ” Arist.Metaph.987b26, etc.

    II. of quality or degree, great, mighty, freq. epith. of gods, “ὁ μ. Ζεύς” A. Supp.1052 (lyr.), etc.; μεγάλα θεά, of Demeter and Persephone, S. OC683 (lyr.); θεοὶ μεγάλοι, of the Cabiri, IG12(8).71 (Imbros), etc.; Μήτηρ μ., of Cybele, SIG1014.83 (Erythrae, iii B. C.), 1138.3 (Delos, ii B. C.); “Μήτηρ θεῶν μ.” OGI540.6 (Pessinus), etc.; “Ἴσιδος μ. μητρὸς θεῶν” PStrassb.81.14 (ii B.C.); “μ. ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων” Act.Ap.19.28; τίς θεὸς μ. ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν; LXX Ps.76(77).13; “ὁ μ. θεός” Ep.Tit.2.13; of men, “μ. ἠδὲ κραταιός” Od.18.382; “ὀλίγος καὶ μ.” Callin.1.17, etc.; μέγας ηὐξήθη rose to greatness, D.2.5; ἤρθη μ. ib.8; βασιλεὺς ὁ μ., i. e. the King of Persia, Hdt.1.188, etc. (θεῶν β. ὁ μ., of Zeus, Pi.O. 7.34); “βασιλεὺς μ.” A.Pers.24 (anap.); as a title of special monarchs, “Ἀρδιαῖος ὁ μ.” Pl.R.615c; “ὁ μ. Ἀλέξανδρος” Ath.1.3d; “ὁ μ. ἐπικληθεὶς Ἀντίοχος” Plb.4.2.7, etc.; “μ. φίλος” E.Med.549; “πλούτῳ τε κἀνδρείᾳ μ.” Id.Tr.674; “ἐπὶ μέγα ἦλθεν ἰσχύος” Th.2.97.

    2. strong, of the elements, etc., ἄνεμος, λαῖλαψ, Ζέφυρος, Od.19.200, 12.408, 14.458; of properties, passions, qualities, feelings, etc., of men, θάρσος, πένθος, ποθή, etc., 9.381, Il.1.254, 11.471, etc.; “ἀρετή” Od.24.193, Pi. O.8.5; “θυμός” Il.9.496, E.Or.702; “κλέος” Il.6.446; “ἄχος” 9.9; “πυρετός” Ev.Luc.4.38 (incorrect acc. to Gal.7.275); ἡ μ. νοῦσος epilepsy, Hp. Epid.6.6.5, cf. Gal.17(2).341.

    3. of sounds, great, loud, ἀλαλητός, ἰαχή, πάταγος, ὀρυμαγδός, Il.12.138, 15.384, 21.9, 256; θόρυβοι, κωκυτός, S.Aj.142 (anap.), E.Med.1176; “οὐκ ἔστι ὅκως τι νεῖκος ἔσται ἢ μέγα ἢ σμικρόν” Hdt.3.62; “μὴ φώνει μέγα” S.Ph.574.

    4. generally, great, mighty, “ὅρκος” Il.19.113; ὄλβος, τιμά, Pi.O.1.56, P.4.148; μ. λόγος, μῦθος, a great story, rumour, A.Pr.732, S.Aj.226 (lyr.); ἐρώτημα a big, i. e. difficult, question, Pl.Euthd.275d, Hp.Ma. 287b; weighty, important, “τόδε μεῖζον” Od.16.291; μέγα ποιέεσθαί τι to esteem of great importance, Hdt.3.42, cf. 9.111; “μέγα γενέσθαι εἴς τι” X.HG7.5.6; “μ. ὑπάρχειν πρός τι” Id.Mem.2.3.4; “μέγα διαφέρειν εἴς τι” Pl.Lg.78oc; οὐκ ἂν εἴη παρὰ μέγα τὸ δικολογεῖν not of great importance, Phld.Rh.2.85 S.; τὸ δὲ μέγιστον and what is most important, Th.4.70, cf. 1.142; οἱ μέγιστοι καιροί the most pressing emergencies, D.20.44; μ. ὠνησάμενοι χρημάτων for large sums, Plb. 4.50.3, etc.

    5. with a bad sense, over-great, μέγα εἰπεῖν to speak big, and so provoke divine wrath, Od.22.288; “λίην μέγα εἶπες” 3.227, 16.243; “μέγα ἔργον” 3.261, Pi.N.10.64; “ἔργων μ.” A.Ag.1546 (anap.); “ὠμὸν τὸ βούλευμα καὶ μ.” Th.3.36; ἔπος μ., μ. λόγοι, S.Aj. 423 (lyr.), Ant.1350 (anap.); μ. γλῶσσα ib.127 (anap.); “μηδὲν μέγ᾽ εἴπῃς” Id.Aj.386; “μὴ μέγα λέγε” Pl.Phd.95b; “μὴ μεγάλα λίαν λέγε” Ar.Ra.835; “μέγα φρονεῖν” S.OT1078, E.Hipp.6; “μεγάλα φρονεῖν” Ar.Ach.988; μεγάλα, μεῖζον ἢ δικαίως πνεῖν, E.Andr.189, A.Ag.376 (lyr.); “μέγα τι παθεῖν” X.An.5.8.17; “μὴ μέγα λέγων μεῖζον πάθῃς” E. HF1244.

    6. of style. impressive, Demetr.Eloc.278; μεῖζον more striking, ib.103.

    7. of days, long, Gal.12.714.
    B. Adv. μεγάλως [α^] greatly, mightily, Od.16.432, Hes.Th. 429, Hdt.1.16,30, al., X.Cyr.8.2.10, Parth.28.1, etc.; strengthd., “μάλα μ.” Il.17.723; “δμαθέντες μ.” A.Pers.907 (lyr.); with Adjs., Hdt. 1.4, 7.190.

    II. more freq. neut. sg. μέγα as Adv., very much, exceedingly, μ. χαῖρε all hail!, v. l. for μάλα in Od.24.402; esp. with Verbs expressing strong feeling, “μ. κεν κεχαροίατο” Il.1.256; “μ. κήδεται” 2.27, etc.: with Verbs expressing power, might, “μ. πάντων . . κρατέει” 1.78; “ὃς μ. πάντων. . ἤνασσε” 10.32; “πατρὸς μ. δυναμένοιο” Od.1.276, cf. Hom.Epigr.15.1, A.Eu.950 (anap.), E.Hel.1358 (lyr.), Ar.Ra.141, Pl.R.366a; “μ. δύνασθαι παρά τινι” Th.2.29; “πλουτέειν μ.” Hdt.1.32; or those expressing sound, loudly, μ. ἰάχειν, ἀῧσαι, βοῆσαι, εὔξασθαι, ἀμβῶσαι, Il.2.333, 14.147, 17.334, Od.17.239, Hdt.1.8 (also pl., “μεγάλ᾽ εὔχετο” Il.1.450; μ. αὐδήσαντος, μ. ἤπυεν, Od.4.505, 9.399): strengthd., “μάλα μ.” Il.15.321; “μ. δ᾽ ἔβραχε φήγινος ἄξων” 5.838, etc.: so in Trag. with all kinds of Verbs, μ. στένειν, σθένειν, χλίειν,
    A.Ag.711 (lyr.), 938, Ch.137: also in pl., “μεγάλα. . δυστυχεῖς” Id.Eu.791 (lyr.).

    2. of Space, far, “μέγα προθορών” Il.14.363; ἄνευθε μέγα far away, 22.88; “οὐκ ἂν μέγα τι τῆς ἀληθείας παρεξέλθοις” Pl.Phlb.66b.

    3. with Adjs., as μέγ᾽ ἔξοχος, μέγα νήπιος, Il.2.480, 16.46; μ. νήπιε Orac. ap. Hdt.1.85; “μ. πλούσιος” Id.1.32, 7.190; “ὦ μέγ᾽ εὔδαιμον κόρη” A.Pr.647: with Comp. and Sup., by far, μέγ᾽ ἀμείνονες, ἄριστος, φέρτατος, Il.4.405, 2.82, 16.21.

    C. degrees of Comparison (regul. μεγαλώτερος, -ώτατος late, EM780.1,2):

    1. Comp. μείζων, ον, gen. ονος, Ep., Att. (also Delph., SIG246 H260 (iv B. C.)); Ion., Arc., Dor., Aeol. μέζων, ον, Heraclit. 25, Hp.Acut.44, Hdt.1.26, IG7.235.16 (Oropus), 5(2).3.18 (Tegea), Epich.62 (also early Att., IG12.22.65, but [με] ίζων ib.6.93, by analogy of ὀλείζων ib.76,95); dat. pl. “μεζόνεσσι” Diotog. ap. Stob.4.7.62: written μέσδων in Sapph.Supp.7.6, Plu.Lyc.19: cf. μέττον: μεῖζον, Hsch. (dub.); later “μειζότερος” 3 Ep.Jo.4 (used as title, elder, POxy. 943.3 (vi A. D.), etc.); “μειζονώτερος” A.Fr.434:—greater, longer, taller, Il.3.168, 9.202, etc.; freq. also, too great, “γέρας” Pl.Sph.231a; Μηνόφιλος μείζων M. the elder, Ostr.Bodl.vC 2 (ii A. D.); as title, μειζων κώμης headman of a village, POxy.1626.5 (iv A. D.), etc.: generally, the higher authority, PLond.2.214.22 (iii A. D.), POxy.1204.17 (pl., iii A. D.); οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτε ἔλαττον, a strong form of denial, nothing whatever, D.H.Comp.4; “οὐδαμὰ προὔφηνεν οὔτε μείζον᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐλάττονα” S.Tr.324. Adv. “μειζόνως” E.Hec.1121, Th.1.130, X.Cyn.13.3, Isoc.9.21, etc.; Ion. “μεζόνως” Hdt.3.128, Herod.4.80, etc.: neut. as Adv., “μεῖζον σθένειν” S.Ph.456, E.Supp.216; “μ. ἰσχύειν” D.Ep.3.28; “ἐπὶ μ. ἔρχεται” S.Ph.259.

    2. Sup. μέγιστος, η, ον, Il.2.412, etc.: neut. as Adv., “μέγιστον ἴσχυσε” S.Aj.502; δυνάμενος μ., c. gen., Hdt.7.5, 9.9: with another Sup., “μέγιστον ἐχθίστη” E.Med.1323: in pl., “χαῖρ᾽ ὡς μέγιστα” S.Ph.462; “θάλλει μ.” Id.OC700 (lyr.); “τὰ μέγιστ᾽ ἐτιμάθης” Id.OT1203 (lyr.); ἐς μέγιστον ib.521; “ἐς τὰ μ.” Hdt.8.111:—late Sup. “μεγιστότατος” PLond.1.130.49 (i/ii A. D.). (Cf. Skt. majmαn- 'greatness', Lat. magnus, Goth. mikils 'great'.)

    Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
    When the situation does occur what is your method of doing so?
    Thanks for the useful question. I'm off to do a little grocery shopping, but will respond when I get back.

    Catman.

    Leave a comment:


  • foudroyant
    replied
    Originally posted by Catman View Post
    I have always found it most difficult to defend, when I am placed in the ring with someone who is arguing for Jesus not being God.
    When the situation does occur what is your method of doing so?

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    Not at the moment. I do not have sufficient memory and mental energy to deal with multiple subjects all at once, and my interest is focused elsewhere at present.
    Simon's Cat.gif

    No harm, I've got plenty to do too.

    Bye-bye.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Catman View Post
    Do you understand this?
    Not at the moment. I do not have sufficient memory and mental energy to deal with multiple subjects all at once, and my interest is focused elsewhere at present.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    Thanks. It is true that one of the two original moderators of BL301 (Jaltus) ruled (in a post in this forum) that anything related to biblical texts could be discussed here, and that seems to be confirmed in the Biblical Language 301 Guidelines.
    Let me try that again. I was in the process of answering a call, and running off to collect someone.

    Yes, I remember that -- whether I read it at the time, or later -- is a bit hazy now.

    The thing is that most people wonder about this idea of the Trinity, and because it caused such a terrible rift in the early church; there is a tendency to give it a wide berth. It's also a topic, that has been done to death all over Internet Forums, Websites, blogs and the like. The thing is that there are so many of those which provide misinformation, and one then encounters unbelievers who [know] it's a hot issue. [Also, that its] meant to be one of the many mysteries, which Christians "have" to believe.

    I did not intend to make this about a theological issue, but it clearly is one. Yet, it is also a matter of correct exegesis of the pertinent, and oft confusing passages. i.e. The Johannie Comma ( 1 John 5:7* ) [ which some indicate is a later addition, as well as passages like 1 Timothy 3:16** ]

    1 John 5:7 ESV
    * 7 For there are three that testify: [whereas in the KJV we read: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


    ** 1 Timothy 3:16 ESV
    16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
    He[a] was manifested in the flesh, [Notice how the word 'God' in the KJV, has been changed to 'He' in the ESV]
    vindicated[b] by the Spirit,[c]
    seen by angels,
    proclaimed among the nations,
    believed on in the world,
    taken up in glory.




    Take for instance the two passages in my opening post [ John 15:24 & 1 Corinthians 15:28 ], and try to line those up with the many places where Jesus in his earthly ministry; makes it pretty clear who he is in relation to God. Hmm? i.e. refer to the verse in post 27, where Jesus states outright "I and the Father are one" I'm no mathematician, but it's pretty simple that he's going to have to explain that to those who recite the Shema. [ Something he wholeheartedly endorsed: Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. ...." (Mark 12:29 - ESV)

    Yet the passages I've pointed to make strong cases for something that does not add up to one. It's this very fact, that we Christians now have the awkward doctrine of the Trinity. I have always found it most difficult to defend, when I am placed in the ring with someone who is arguing for Jesus not being God.

    I came into Christ, at a very young age and as such I never really took to the idea of the Trinity. I was only really interested in Jesus. I always found the talk of the Fatherhood of God, and such, very frustrating. It was almost as if I was being sold on the idea of three Gods. In fact, I tend to make like Tozer and just talk about God, and in some ways the sweetness of Jesus name, doesn't feel the same as a result. Do you understand this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Catman
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    During his Earthly ministry, the topic is done and dusted: He subordinated himself to the Father.

    The circumstances as they existed before that ministry, and since, need to direct the examination to passages that aren't in the gospels.
    Who, or what precisely are you responding to?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    During his Earthly ministry, the topic is done and dusted: He subordinated himself to the Father.

    The circumstances as they existed before that ministry, and since, need to direct the examination to passages that aren't in the gospels.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X