D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Steve, we beleive that Jesus is fully God and fully MAN. So, simply quoting texts that point out his human side, does not disprove his divine side.
Biblical Proof Text of the Trinity: All Christian Apologists welcome to join.
- Status
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Daniel,
I appreciate your passion to explain your view of Scripture.
Here’s the question: As a Bible student, can you distinguish between the representative who was sent by YHWH to communicate for him and YHWH himself?
At Heb 1:1, we learn that YHWH sent prophets to speak for him, and of course, even though these prophets spoke in the 1st person for YHWH “I am YHWH….”, we are not confused they are actually YHWH or some part of a Trinity with YHWH.
As John 1:18 says: “No man has seen God at any time”
What they’ve seen are representatives that YHWH has sent to speak for him.
This is further explain in Heb 1:1
(Hebrews 1:1-2) God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,
Are you astute enough to realize that a messenger of YHWH isn’t YHWH himself?
As you read through the Bible…. From Genesis up to the end of Jude… Jesus is portrayed as the messenger of YHWH, His spokesman… In fact, that is why he’s called “The Word”.
If a person is unable to see that Jesus is the Son of YHWH, and functions as his spokesman, they he will never be able to distinguish the subtleties found in the book of Revelation.
Just look at Rev 1:1
God sent forth Jesus as his spokesman
Jesus then sent forth an angel to be the spokesman
Comparing Rev 1:1 and Rev 22:16 shows that everything communicated to John was through an angel as the spokesman. It was the angel that was speaking in first person for Jesus, and in first person for YHWH.
Compound this problem with the fact that YHWH’s name has been removed from the Bible, substituted with the common title of Lord, which just happens to be also used for Jesus.
Thus, if a Bible student hasn’t figured out that Jesus isn’t YHWH by the time he’s reached the book of Revelation, he’ll continue to be confused.
“Alpha and Omega” – according to Rev 1:1 and Rev 22:16… it is the angel sent for that is speaking these words as the messenger…. For whom? Ultimately, YHWH.
“First and Last” – it is the angel sent for that is speaking these words as the messenger… for whom? In one case, for YHWH (as the First and Last Almighty God) and another case for Jesus (as the First and Last person to be resurrected directly by YHWH)
“Who is coming?” The scriptures have long pointed to the “Day of YHWH” as coming… but YHWH sends his representative Jesus and Jesus is accompanied by the angels…
So, YHWH can be said to be “coming”, Jesus can be said to be “coming”, and the angels accompanying Jesus can be said to be “coming”.
As for who died… This is Jesus… not YHWH
In summary, the entire confusion Trinitarians have is that they can’t seem to understand how YHWH sends representatives to speak his message.
I fully expect you to dismiss all this and I’m not surprised because I would expect you to stumble over the subtleties of Revelation when you are not able to understand such plain scriptures such as Psa 110:1-5; Acts 3:13, John 17:3 which clearly distinguish Jesus as the Son of YHWH, YHWH’s servant, and YHWH’s spokesman…
Nice talking with you.
I appreciate your passion to explain your view of Scripture.
Here’s the question: As a Bible student, can you distinguish between the representative who was sent by YHWH to communicate for him and YHWH himself?
At Heb 1:1, we learn that YHWH sent prophets to speak for him, and of course, even though these prophets spoke in the 1st person for YHWH “I am YHWH….”, we are not confused they are actually YHWH or some part of a Trinity with YHWH.
As John 1:18 says: “No man has seen God at any time”
What they’ve seen are representatives that YHWH has sent to speak for him.
This is further explain in Heb 1:1
(Hebrews 1:1-2) God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,
Are you astute enough to realize that a messenger of YHWH isn’t YHWH himself?
As you read through the Bible…. From Genesis up to the end of Jude… Jesus is portrayed as the messenger of YHWH, His spokesman… In fact, that is why he’s called “The Word”.
If a person is unable to see that Jesus is the Son of YHWH, and functions as his spokesman, they he will never be able to distinguish the subtleties found in the book of Revelation.
Just look at Rev 1:1
God sent forth Jesus as his spokesman
Jesus then sent forth an angel to be the spokesman
Comparing Rev 1:1 and Rev 22:16 shows that everything communicated to John was through an angel as the spokesman. It was the angel that was speaking in first person for Jesus, and in first person for YHWH.
Compound this problem with the fact that YHWH’s name has been removed from the Bible, substituted with the common title of Lord, which just happens to be also used for Jesus.
Thus, if a Bible student hasn’t figured out that Jesus isn’t YHWH by the time he’s reached the book of Revelation, he’ll continue to be confused.
“Alpha and Omega” – according to Rev 1:1 and Rev 22:16… it is the angel sent for that is speaking these words as the messenger…. For whom? Ultimately, YHWH.
“First and Last” – it is the angel sent for that is speaking these words as the messenger… for whom? In one case, for YHWH (as the First and Last Almighty God) and another case for Jesus (as the First and Last person to be resurrected directly by YHWH)
“Who is coming?” The scriptures have long pointed to the “Day of YHWH” as coming… but YHWH sends his representative Jesus and Jesus is accompanied by the angels…
So, YHWH can be said to be “coming”, Jesus can be said to be “coming”, and the angels accompanying Jesus can be said to be “coming”.
As for who died… This is Jesus… not YHWH
In summary, the entire confusion Trinitarians have is that they can’t seem to understand how YHWH sends representatives to speak his message.
I fully expect you to dismiss all this and I’m not surprised because I would expect you to stumble over the subtleties of Revelation when you are not able to understand such plain scriptures such as Psa 110:1-5; Acts 3:13, John 17:3 which clearly distinguish Jesus as the Son of YHWH, YHWH’s servant, and YHWH’s spokesman…
Nice talking with you.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
In fact, this is the challenge I make to those with Trinitiarian beliefs.
Take every statement Jesus makes and see if that statement would be consistent with the non-Trinitarian model… If Jesus really was a Son of YHWH, and not some Trinity thing with YHWH, could he say:
YHWH was “the only true God”? (John 17:3)
YHWH was “my God” (Rev 3:12)
he was sitting at the right hand of YHWH (Psa 110:1-5)
that he was a servant of YHWH (Acts 3:13)
that he was a messenger sent by YHWH (Heb 1:1)
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
In the text Jesus is speaking as a humble servant ( phil 2 ) to the glory of the father.I’ve seen these types of threads for quite a while now, and they dont get very far, it just leads to resentment.
Seriously, why don’t we address one scripture at a time. I personally think that would be much better than just constantly throwing scripture verses in the ring. If we are not careful we can tend to misuse the scriptures of God which does not benefit anyone.
BibleSteve, I notice you don’t tend to do this, until your last post. Also I notice you only argue the scripture verses you know well. But fellow Catholics, on this thread anyway you have been just throwing out threads at BibleSteve and we know that it only makes him more stubborn in proving you wrong.
Start on one or two scriptures at a time, then again this is not my thread.
In regards to
I don’t think this neccessarily rules out Jesus being part of the true God, but I can see how it does seem to distinguish the Son from God. Does anyone know what Jesus was intending when Jesus said “the only tue God”? I mean why didn’t Jesus say “…to know us the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”
Anyway, Jesus referring to God and then to himself doesn’t mean Jesus is not also God. It is like a man introducing himself and saying “I’m a father and the chief of police”. Do you understand me?
John 17
1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
This text does speak of his pre-existence.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Yes, the relationship between Jesus and his Father YHWH is similar to the relationship between Abraham and Isaac.
In fact, you should note the prophetic drama illustrated by Abraham being willing to sacrifice his dear son, Isaac… and note the same parallell as YHWH being willing to sacrifice his dear son, Jesus.
In the case of Abraham and Isaac… it’s a standard father/son relationship, no Trinity concept…
In the case of YHWH and Jesus… the same thing… Father/Son… with no Trinity concept.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
forananswer.org/ABC_Index.htm
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
The Word was God is simply referring to the LOGOS as having the same divine ( yes, divine means God ) nature as God.
The translation “word was a god” is polytheistic, because it teaches two gods.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
The truth is that the Bible sometimes uses the term “god” as a description of someone in a high station.
I know it would make things far easier to only use “god” to mean YHWH, but it doesn’t.
See for example:
(John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
If the Bible uses the term “god” to describe simple humans as “mighty, powerful people”… it’s not surprising to me that the same description could be applied to Jesus at John 1:1.
That’s why 50+ other translators have chosen to translate that as “The Word was god-like, divine, a god, etc.”
No one would charge Jesus with teaching polytheism, but there he is quoting Scripture and calling various humans “gods”…
It’s just a fact the Bible uses the term “god” to mean something other than only YHWH
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Hi Steve, the watchtower commits two errors in presenting our trinity doctrine. First, they try to mode us in the suit of a tri-theist who believes in three Gods. We believe in ONE God. The second error that you are displaying nicely for us is mis-defining our belief to be that of modalism or sabellism. You are thinking that we believe that God the Father is God the Son. We don’t believe that God the Son is God the Father. So, stop that nonsense because all we are doing is laughing when we see it.
Also, note in the LXX the hebrew word yada has been translated often enough as monogenēs.
monogenēs
adjective
TDNT Reference
4:737,606
Outline of Biblical Usage 1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Luk 7:12 Now 1161 when 5613 he came nigh 1448 to the gate 4439 of the city 4172, behold 2532 2400 , there was 1580 0 a dead man 2348 carried out 1580 , the only 3439 son 5207 of his 846 mother 3384, and 2532 she 846 was 2258 a widow 5503: and 2532 much 2425 people 3793 of the city 4172 was 2258 with 4862 her 846.
Luk 8:42 For 3754 he 846 had 2258 one only 3439 daughter 2364, about 5613 twelve 1427 years of age 2094, and 2532 she 3778 846 lay a dying 599 . But 1161 as 1722 he 846 went 5217 the people 3793 thronged 4846 him 846.
Luk 9:38 And, 2532 behold 2400 , a man 435 of 575 the company 3793 cried out 310 , saying 3004 , Master 1320, I beseech 1189 thee 4675, look 1914 upon 1909 my 3450 son 5207: for 3754 he is 2076 mine 3427 only child 3439.
Jhn 1:14 And 2532 the Word 3056 was made 1096 flesh 4561, and 2532 dwelt 4637 among 1722 us 2254, (and 2532 we beheld 2300 his 846 glory 1391, the glory 1391 as 5613 of the only begotten 3439 of 3844 the Father 3962,) full 4134 of grace 5485 and 2532 truth 225.
Jhn 1:18 No man 3762 hath seen 3708 God 2316 at any time 4455; the only begotten 3439 Son 5207, which 3588 is 5607 in 1519 the bosom 2859 of the Father 3962, he 1565 hath declared 1834 [him].
Jhn 3:16 For 1063 God 2316 so 3779 loved 25 the world 2889, that 5620 he gave 1325 his 846 only begotten 3439 Son 5207, that 2443 whosoever 3956 believeth 4100 in 1519 him 846 should 622 0 not 3361 perish 622 , but 235 have 2192 everlasting 166 life 2222.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth 4100 on 1519 him 846 is 2919 0 not 3756 condemned 2919 : but 1161 he that believeth 4100 not 3361 is condemned 2919 already 2235, because 3754 he hath 4100 0 not 3361 believed 4100 in 1519 the name 3686 **of the only begotten 3439 Son 5207 of God 2316. **
Hbr 11:17 By faith 4102 Abraham 11, when he was tried 3985 , offered up 4374 Isaac 2464: and 2532 he that had received 324 the promises 1860 offered up 4374** his only begotten 3439 [son],**
1Jo 4:9 In 1722 this 5129 was manifested 5319 the love 26 of God 2316 toward 1722 us 2254, because 3754 that God 2316 sent 649 his 846 **only begotten 3439 Son 5207 **into 1519 the world 2889, that 2443 we might live 2198 through 1223 him 846.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Daniel,
I don’t speak for the Watchtower, for Russell, or Rutherford… I speak for myself as a student of the Bible… so you don’t need to keep arguing with them…
I want to focus our discussion on Scripture… not the Catholic Church, the Watchtower, the ECF’s, Russell, etc…
Steve
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Note to Readers,
Tri-Theists believe that there are Three Gods in the Godhead.
Those who believe in the trinity are not tri-theists.
Sabellism or Modalism, beleives that God the Father is God the Son is God the Spirit, that there is one God, who showed up at different times in different modes, that of father, son and holy spirit.
Those who believe in the trinity are not Modalists either. We believe that there are three seperate persons in the godhead.
newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Athanasian Creed
Tri-Theists believe that there are Three Gods in the Godhead.
Those who believe in the trinity are not tri-theists.
Sabellism or Modalism, beleives that God the Father is God the Son is God the Spirit, that there is one God, who showed up at different times in different modes, that of father, son and holy spirit.
Those who believe in the trinity are not Modalists either. We believe that there are three seperate persons in the godhead.
newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Athanasian Creed
- Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
- Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
- And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
- Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
- For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
- But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
- Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
- The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
- The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
- The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
- And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
- As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
- So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
- And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
- So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
- And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
- So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
- And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
- For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
- So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
- The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
- The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
- The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
- So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
- And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
- But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
- So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
- He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
- Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
- God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
- Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
- Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
- Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
- One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
- One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
- For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
- Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
- He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
- From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
- At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
- and shall give account of their own works.
- And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
- This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Umm another logic check. Even if every statement Jesus makes could theoretically be consistent with a non-Trinitarian model, it does not mean the non-Trinitarian model is true.
What if it were true that every statement Jesus made could theoretically be consistent with a polytheistic model. Would that made polytheism true.
Now I think John 17:3 directly contradicts polytheism but I’m not sure if if there are any other ones (looking in my concordance and crosschecking the word “only” with the words of Christ all I see that is really applicable is John 17:3). What if John 17:3 weren’t in the Bible…would that make polytheism true?.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Hi cascherman, JW’s do compile such lists. But, their “translators” includes fellow Arians like the Christadelphians, others are of Unitarians, Some are Spiritualists like Greber for example, and a handful are legit like Goodspeed’s NT, who’s purpose is to bring out the nature of the Word. What the JW’s are missing is the fact that divine in this context means God. Even ligit one’s that have been revised by Unitarians or other “cultists.”
Joh 1:1
BibleTexts.com - In the beginning the Word already had being. The Word had being with God, and what God was, the Word was.
Goodspeed - In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. There are even ligit translations that Unitarians or others have altered to fit their theology .
Moffatt - The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
REB - In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.
Schonfield - In the Beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.
TEV (1976) - Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.
bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v18.htm
bible-researcher.com/versbib9.html
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
I think it’s useful to test every Bible statement against various models…to prove to yourself which fits the statements most accurately.
Polytheism vs. Monotheism? The Bible clearly identifies YHWH as the only true, and Almighty God… However, the Bible then goes onto use the word “god” as a descriptive title of mere humans. Is it teaching Polytheism? No, we simply learn the word “god” is a descriptive title that can be applied to YHWH and others…
Trinitarian vs. non-Trinitarian model? In my opinion, the problem here is the overwhelming bias and presupposition that is instilled on people before they even begin to read the Bible. Their chuch says “By definitition” a “Christian” is someone who believes Jesus is God and the Trinity is true. If you don’t believe that you aren’t a Christian.
In my opinion, if you took a person who’d never heard anything about the Trinity doctrine and knew nothing about the Bible, and let them study an accurate translation of the Bible (which includes the divine name YHWH) and pray for God’s holy spirit for direction, they would NEVER come to the idea of a Trinity.
After reading the Old Testament, they would know that YHWH is the only true God, the Almighty, the Most High…
Then, as they read the New Testament, they would learn that Jesus was YHWH’s Son and was sent to speak in behalf of YHWH.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Ah, Ya in English, “God’s Son”, “Son of God” and “God the Son” all have the basic same meaning based on context.
ROFL, the very argument that the word or phrase ________ is not in the bible came from a man made cult known as the christian connection. Frankly, it does not matter if a word is or is not used in the bible. In fact, no a single English word is technically “in the bible” because the bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. So, based on your own argument, you are NOT even reading the Bible because you are NOT fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.
Steve, I hate to point out the salient, you are reading an interpretation when you do a “book study”.
In fact Steve, the phrase “Bible Alone” is NOT in the Bible. So, based on your logic you can not limit yourself to “just reading the Bible” when in fact, we both know that you are NOT just reading the Bible, but are in fact reading watchtower literature along with the bible.
I am sure my Catholic friends would say that “Bible Alone” is NOT scriptural.
In fact, where in the bible do you find an authoritive list of what books belong in the Bible?
B
BibleSteve
Guest
So, in your view of logic all 3 of these statements mean the same thing?
- Daniel’s Son
- Son of Daniel
- Daniel the Son
However, #3 is pointing in a different direction.
But, if you can’t see that or we can’t agree on this fundamental statement of rudimentary logic, there’s no way we could go onto agree on deeper discussions
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
No, I would say that we Trinitirians are also led of the Holy Spirit.
John 6
45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Jesus plainly tells us that he has seen God the Father, and in fact in John 5, he says that he was currently seeing God the father.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
No you are falling into a word study fallacy there. Words get their meaning from their immediate context, not from how they are used elsewhere. See a book called Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson.
In our mind with Abraham and Issac, the typology works. But, the relationship does not work because you mixing apples and rocks.
also, Isaiah 43:10 tells me that “a god” can not be begotten.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
The context of John 1:1 is NOT the context of John 8.
By translating the Word was a god, you are in fact having more than one god thus you are polythistic.
again all I see you doing is just another word study fallacy.
From chapters 1&2 of Exegetical Fallacies (second edition) by D. A. Carson, Baker Books, ISBN 0-8010-2086-7. Though Carson also addresses logical, presuppositional and historical fallacies, the main ones related to the content of this course are word-study and grammatical fallacies, as listed below:
Word-Study Fallacies
Common Fallacies in Semantics
- Root fallacy – thinking that every word has a meaning bound up with its shape or components
• ajpovstoloV primarily means “messenger” or “special representative,” not “one who is sent” (even though it comes from ajpostevllw) - Semantic anachronism – late use of word is read back into earlier literature
• Early Church Fathers’ usage of ejpivskopoV (“bishop”/“overseer”) as one having authority over several churches may not reflect its NT meaning
• duvnamiV meaning “dynamite” power (anachronism + language change) - Semantic obsolescence – assigning a meaning to a word that it used to have but is no longer in its contemporary semantic range
- Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings
• kefalhv (“head”) meaning “source” or “origin” rather than “authority” - Careless appeal to background material
• Carson’s own wrong acceptance of John 3:5 as referring to the male action in conception (i.e., “begotten” rather than “born” for gennavw, with “water” being a reference to semen) when the evidence was not compelling - Verbal parallelomania – the listing of verbal parallels in other writings or types of literature as if that demonstrates conceptual links or dependency
- Linkage of language and mentality – references to “Hebrew thought” vs. “Greek thought” and positing conclusions about the peoples’ mindsets based on the structure of the language (e.g., the lack of a neuter gender in Hebrew reflected the fact that to the Hebrew mind, all things were “alive”)
- False assumptions about technical meaning – falsely assuming that a word is a technical term that always has the same meaning
- Problems surrounding synonyms and componential analysis (attempts to isolate the components of meaning of words)
• False distinctions between ajgapavw (“love”) and filevw (“love”) - Selective and prejudicial use of evidence
- Unwarranted semantic disjunctions and restrictions – offering readers false either/or alternatives and forcing a decision
- Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field – illegitimately restricting a word’s semantic range (range of meaning)
• Falsely declaring it a technical term (#8)
• Semantic disjunctions (#11)
• Abusing background material (#5)
• Other ways
- Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field (also called “illegitimate totality transfer”) – supposing that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows, and bringing with it the word’s entire semantic range
- Problems relating to the Semitic background of the Greek New Testament – to what extent the words of the Greek New Testament are altered or affected in their meaning by Old Testament or Hebrew or LXX influence on the authors
- Unwarranted neglect of distinguishing peculiarities of a corpus – false assumption that one New Testament writer’s predominant usage of any word is roughly that of all other New Testament writers
• Matthew’s vs. Paul’s usage of dikaiosuvnh (“righteousness”) - Unwarranted linking of sense and reference – wrongly linking the sense (meaning) of a word with its referent (what it refers to). The sense of a word is the mental content with which the word is associated, not its referent, and some words (like abstract adjectives, e.g., “beautiful”) have no referent. Words don’t necessarily by definition name real entities. Scholars often say things like “such and such a word denotes X” when in fact X is not the referent but the sense of the word.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
So, you deny “reading” watchtower books? If someone here who could affoard it ( not me ) were to send you a book, would you read it?
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
John 1:1 is not simply using “the word was God” as a title. It is describing the nature of the word as that of God, divine.
- Status