PDA

View Full Version : Who is Jesus? (not a theological question)



Catman
08-07-2014, 09:43 AM
I've been thinking about this today, and wondering how I might word it so that it's not mistaken for a theological question (and chased out of the hallowed halls of BL301). In some sense, it will always be a matter of intense discussion, argument and debate. This is unavoidable.

This is Biblical Languages, right? Right! In that sense, there has always been one primary passage that gets thrown into these sort of think tanks. It's the one where Jesus says, "....the Father is greater than I." (NASB)

Having spent some time discussing this matter with various folks, from various religious backgrounds; it's not entirely new to me.

So, what exactly did Jesus mean when he said this about his/our heavenly Father?
Is there a pecking order in the heavenly realm?

What exactly does this mean: '....Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. ....' (ESV) ?

I look forward to a very enlightening and inspiring read. :thumb:

tabibito
08-07-2014, 09:53 AM
When he said that, he was a man. Elsewhere, he said that "Glorify me together with you with the glory that I had before the world was."
The statement doesn't impact on any hierarchy within the Godhead at all, because the Word subordinated himself to the Father's will, and was reduced in status.
However, "doesn't impact" means just that - you would need to examine other areas of scripture, dealing with who he is as God before you could determine whether the Godhead has a hierarchy.

Catman
08-07-2014, 10:02 AM
When he said that, he was a man. Elsewhere, he said that "Glorify me together with you with the glory that I had before the world was."
The statement doesn't impact on any hierarchy within the Godhead at all, because the Word subordinated himself to the Father's will, and was reduced in status.
However, "doesn't impact" means just that - you would need to examine other areas of scripture, dealing with who he is as God before you could determine whether the Godhead has a hierarchy.

Thank you for the reply.

For this study, I'll only be looking at the passage from John 14 & the other from 1 Corinthians 15.

A larger body of passages, would require numerous threads to accomplish that.

Catman
08-07-2014, 10:51 AM
NB: The first of the two verses, is John 14:28 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=NASB) (for the English, I used the NASB from biblegateway.com)
It reads as follows:


28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

As you probably know by now (referring to my 1st post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3028-Enjoying-My-Bible-(post-KJO)) to BL301), I'm more than a little intrigued by the NA28 -- so here's the same verse from the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece: here (http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/140001/149999/)


28 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν· κύριε, εἰ σὺ εἶ, κέλευσόν με ἐλθεῖν πρός σε ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα.



If you know me, you'll know Greek is not my strong suit -- but I know there are more than a few of ye BL301'ers who read it like it's your first languages. So, let's here from y'all then?

foudroyant
08-07-2014, 04:34 PM
From two Greek dictionaries concerning John 14:28:

a. TDNT: Citing both John 5:18 and John 14:28 it reads:
Nevertheless, John accepts the paradox that he is the Son who is both subject to the Father and yet also one with Him (10:30; 1:1). In other words, He is equal to the Father (3:352-353, isos, Stahlin)
b. Mounce: Jesus declares that, "The Father is greater than I" (14:28; 15:20). This does not suggest inequality in the Trinity, but rather expresses a willing subordination of the Son to the will of the Father (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Greater, page 309).

Catman
08-07-2014, 05:03 PM
Thanks, foudroyant. I was reading Dr. Carson's commentary on this same verse, and found similar ideas to those of Mounce. I do so enjoy Mounce, too. :thumb:

robrecht
08-07-2014, 05:13 PM
NB: The first of the two verses, is John 14:28 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=NASB) (for the English, I used the NASB from biblegateway.com)
It reads as follows:

28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

As you probably know by now (referring to my 1st post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3028-Enjoying-My-Bible-(post-KJO)) to BL301), I'm more than a little intrigued by the NA28 -- so here's the same verse from the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece: here (http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/140001/149999/)

28 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν· κύριε, εἰ σὺ εἶ, κέλευσόν με ἐλθεῖν πρός σε ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα.

If you know me, you'll know Greek is not my strong suit -- but I know there are more than a few of ye BL301'ers who read it like it's your first languages. So, let's here from y'all then?The Greek verse you cited is Mt 14,28. It is not John 14,28.

Catman
08-07-2014, 05:13 PM
The force of the second verse, is simply quite magnificent! :read:

Here I am using the ESV @ biblegateway.com, for 1 Corinthians 15: 24 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15&version=ESV)


24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

Once again, here is the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece: here (http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/)


24 εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδιδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν.

robrecht
08-07-2014, 05:17 PM
I think most of the New Testament authors would probably be fairly well characterized as subordinationists, at least some of what they said inspired honest interpretations along these lines. Nicea and Chalcedon and later councils were the result of centuries of theological reflection upon the meaning of the Incarnation.

Catman
08-07-2014, 05:22 PM
The Greek verse you cited is Mt 14,28. It is not John 14,28.

Thank you, robrecht.

The default setting is Matthew, and my mouse has begun to show signs of age (much like the clicker), but you're spot on there old chap! :wink:

This then is John 14:28 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=NASB) (NASB), from the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece : here (http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/53/140001/149999/)



28 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἂν ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.

Catman
08-07-2014, 05:40 PM
I think most of the New Testament authors would probably be fairly well characterized as subordinationists, at least some of what they said inspired honest interpretations along these lines. Nicea and Chalcedon and later councils were the result of centuries of theological reflection upon the meaning of the Incarnation.

The author, Jonathan Swift, wrote a nice article about this. I came upon it, whilst going through some very old encyclopedias; and included it in a little book I wrote entitled: A Play On Words. (it's not published yet, but the essay I'm sure is something one might be able to Google.) It's titled simply, 'The Doctrine of the Trinity' by Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745)

foudroyant
08-07-2014, 07:19 PM
NIDNTT: Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28) (2:80, God, J. Schneider).

tabibito
08-07-2014, 09:02 PM
NIDNTT: Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28) (2:80, God, J. Schneider).

Gutsy play by Schneider for all that scripture shows it.

foudroyant
08-07-2014, 09:06 PM
Like other teachings from the Bible some will still deny it anyway.

Catman
08-08-2014, 04:10 AM
NIDNTT: Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28) (2:80, God, J. Schneider).

I'm going to post up a little of D.A. Carson, and would'nt mind at all if you put up the appropriate stanza or two (no more - we don't wanna run into copyright issues here.)

tabibito
08-08-2014, 04:29 AM
The write-up here (http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-subordination-scholars.htm) is reasonably comprehensive: though all the "as ifs" are an annoyance, the Biblical assessment itself is good.

Catman
08-08-2014, 04:40 AM
Relative to the first of the two passages [hinted at in my opening], we're considering in this thread -- here's a fraction of D.A. Carson's commentary, for the gospel according to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary) :


'...., although the interpretation of v. 28 advanced here turns on the distinction between the Father in his glory and the Son in his incarnation, nevertheless the verse also attests to the pattern of functional subordination of the Son to the Father, already alluded to, that extends backward into eternity past (cf. Barrett, Essays, pp. 19-36; Carson, pp. 146-160). 'The Father is fons divinitatis ["divine fountainhead"] in which the being of the Son has its source; the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient. John's thought here is focused on the humiliation of the Son in his early life, a humiliation which now, in his death, reached both its climax and its end' (Barrett, p. 468).

tabibito
08-08-2014, 05:03 AM
You're saying that the Father and the Son are not co-equal?

robrecht
08-08-2014, 05:05 AM
Is there really a question about biblical languages here? If not I will leave you all in peace.

Catman
08-08-2014, 05:14 AM
While I've got time, here's a look at Bruce Winter's commentary for the 2nd and final passage ( 1 Corinthians 15:24 ) ref. New Bible Commentary. He's short 'n sweet 'n to the point, but one needs to read right up to v. 28.

Here's the English Standard Version, for it:


24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28729c)] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

Here's a sample of what Bruce Winter wrote:



24. Then comes the end, the last event in this cosmic history, when Christ delivers into the hands of the Father the kingdom, having subdued all.

25. He will reign as sovereign Lord of heaven and earth until all is subject to him.

27. Paul explains by citing the messianic Ps. 8:6 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+8%3A6&version=ESV) ['....You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,....'] which points to the sub-judication* of all. He expounds the passage by dwelling on the significance of everything. That naturally does not include God himself who puts everything under Christ's feet.

28. When this is finally accomplished, Christ will bow the knee to God the Father so that God will be all in all. In so short a passage Paul has traced paradise lost and regained, and the recovery of the submission of all things to God as in the beginning of creation. And it is Christ's resurrection which that guarantees this.'


( *I'm not exactly sure here, if this is a typo -- and should instead be subjugation, or perhaps another word )

Catman
08-08-2014, 05:17 AM
Is there really a question about biblical languages here? If not I will leave you all in peace.

I think it is. Why do you think otherwise?

robrecht
08-08-2014, 05:23 AM
I think it is. Why do you think otherwise?What is the question? None of the translations I've seen here so far seem problematic, but maybe I haven't been paying attention.

Catman
08-08-2014, 05:27 AM
One last little toot for the road, by my favorite writer:

Passage 1: John 14:28 (I'm quoting 22-31)


22 Judas (not Iscariot) said, “Master, why is it that you are about to make yourself plain to us but not to the world?”



23-24 “Because a loveless world,” said Jesus, “is a sightless world. If anyone loves me, he will carefully keep my word and my Father will love him—we’ll move right into the neighborhood! Not loving me means not keeping my words. The message you are hearing isn’t mine. It’s the message of the Father who sent me.



25-27 “I’m telling you these things while I’m still living with you. The Friend, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send at my request, will make everything plain to you. He will remind you of all the things I have told you. I’m leaving you well and whole. That’s my parting gift to you. Peace. I don’t leave you the way you’re used to being left—feeling abandoned, bereft. So don’t be upset. Don’t be distraught.



28 “You’ve heard me tell you, ‘I’m going away, and I’m coming back.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I’m on my way to the Father because the Father is the goal and purpose of my life.



29-31 “I’ve told you this ahead of time, before it happens, so that when it does happen, the confirmation will deepen your belief in me. I’ll not be talking with you much more like this because the chief of this godless world is about to attack. But don’t worry—he has nothing on me, no claim on me. But so the world might know how thoroughly I love the Father, I am carrying out my Father’s instructions right down to the last detail.
“Get up. Let’s go. It’s time to leave here.”



Passage 2: 1 Corinthians 15:24 (I'm quoting 21-28)

There is a nice symmetry in this: Death initially came by a man, and resurrection from death came by a man. Everybody dies in Adam; everybody comes alive in Christ. But we have to wait our turn: Christ is first, then those with him at his Coming, the grand consummation when, after crushing the opposition, he hands over his kingdom to God the Father. He won’t let up until the last enemy is down—and the very last enemy is death! As the psalmist said, “He laid them low, one and all; he walked all over them.” When Scripture says that “he walked all over them,” it’s obvious that he couldn’t at the same time be walked on. When everything and everyone is finally under God’s rule, the Son will step down, taking his place with everyone else, showing that God’s rule is absolutely comprehensive—a perfect ending!

These quotes are from The Message by Prof. Peterson.

Catman
08-08-2014, 05:43 AM
You're saying that the Father and the Son are not co-equal?

What exactly is if from my posts in #17 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85601&viewfull=1#post85601) and #20 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85608&viewfull=1#post85608), that gives you such an idea?
Please be specific, and quote [from] the sections of commentary I've provided -- by Carson, and now by Winter?

Catman
08-08-2014, 05:59 AM
What is the question? None of the translations I've seen here so far seem problematic, but maybe I haven't been paying attention.

You're not new to this, so I'm not going to school you. If you'd read the title & opening post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85242&viewfull=1#post85242) (which I think is an important part of how things work here - or now days, do we just intuit stuff?), you'd notice I've asked quite a few.

(a) Who is Jesus?
(b) What did Jesus mean when he said, '....the Father is greater than I' ? ( the passage I had in mind, I've already shown in both English and Greek ) - I hope that is good enough? ( the comments which followed in my opening post, where I mention '...various folks, from various religious backgrounds....') - I can be more specific, in pointing to the a group called the 'Bible Students' (which were a branch off, or a development from the 'Jehovah's Witnesses') -- they too, like the Bible Students, hold very different views with regard to this passage. I've also engaged in discussions (unfortunately, all washed away now -- since t-web crashed) with those who never declared their particular religious position, but have some very strong arguments with regard to this particular passage.

My attempt here, is to explore the passage as fairly and accurately as possible, so that in case any of our readers have struggles with this sort of thing - they'd ultimately be encouraged in their faith.

I hope that helps to clarify my position, and provides some sort of background as to why I'm in earnest about a good translation and commentary for both the passages. (also this will help readers to understand why I asked the following related questions - in my opening post)

(c) So, what exactly did Jesus mean when he said this about his/our heavenly Father?
(d) Is there a pecking order in the heavenly realm?

Finally, this last question: (which I've also present in both English, Greek and provided my best shot at a commentary)

(e) What exactly does this mean: '....Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. ....' (ESV) ?

I hope that I've done enough, motivated strongly enough and if you do have anything to add -- go for it!

In earnest,
Eric.

[edit: add: I think I've got a Word document of the final part to a post, where said party presented a very strong argument in favor of the pecking order idea. -- I'll see if I can find it, and bring it to the thread tomorrow sometime. ]

robrecht
08-08-2014, 06:38 AM
I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions, or objecting to their being discussed here; 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.).

A. I. 1. a. 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. 1. 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. I. 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. 1. 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.

Catman
08-08-2014, 07:36 AM
I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions; I just don't see a specific question pertaining to biblical languages, grammar, syntax, etc.

Oops, you seem to have brought a thesis to a book club. No harm, if you read my edit:add (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-%28not-a-theological-question%29&p=85627&viewfull=1#post85627) in my previous post: '....a very strong argument in favor of the pecking order idea. I'll see if I can find it, and bring it to the thread tomorrow sometime.' -- you might have waited until tomorrow, and properly presented yourself then. It's very hard to read, with such a dense quote. Anyhow, seeing as you're well prepared to respond to the five questions -- in my previous post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-%28not-a-theological-question%29&p=85627&viewfull=1#post85627), here's one that might provide a little more excitement:

'....I am not a trinitarian in the orthodox (Catholic) sense.

On the other hand, I am "sort of" trinitarian, as you will see. Don't forget that there are at least three (possibly more) trinitarian doctrines. More about that later. [she never revealed that]

I am very familiar with the propositions on which the orthodox doctrine is based. The problem is, the statements are not consistent; and I can only assume that the ambiguity was deliberate on the part of whoever made up this list. [* refer below]

Let's make ALL the statements use "God" in the substantive sense. Then-

1. There is only one God (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son (False)
4. That one God is the Spirit (False)

Now let's make ALL the statements use "God" in a qualitative sense. Better yet, let's use the term "divine".

1. There is only one who is divine (False)
2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
3. The Son is divine. (True. As God's own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
4. God's Spirit is divine. (True. How could God's Spirit be anything else.)

You see the problem. There are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified by Jesus himself as the Father. And to that testimony all the biblical writers agree. ....'

----
* referring to: Trinity @ Bible.org : (unfortunately the site has changes and the link no longer works)

'Trinity is a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (AD. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:

1. That God is one, and that there is but one God. (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30_

2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

This is just one of the examples, but my opening post -- is less adventurous, and hence not focused on too wide a stream of thoughts. As you can see, I only focused on two of many possible passages, which could be explored.

I'll leave that open then, now that I've posted up the prior details -- please feel free to explore this, anyway you deem useful.

Kindly,
Eric.

[edit:add: the link: http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Trinity ]

John Reece
08-08-2014, 07:54 AM
Oops, you seem to have brought a thesis to a book club. No harm, if you read my edit:add (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-%28not-a-theological-question%29&p=85627&viewfull=1#post85627) in my previous post: '....a very strong argument in favor of the pecking order idea. I'll see if I can find it, and bring it to the thread tomorrow sometime.' -- you might have waited until tomorrow, and properly presented yourself then. It's very hard to read, with such a dense quote. Anyhow, seeing as you're well prepared to respond to the five questions -- in my previous post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-%28not-a-theological-question%29&p=85627&viewfull=1#post85627), here's one that might provide a little more excitement:

'....I am not a trinitarian in the orthodox (Catholic) sense.

On the other hand, I am "sort of" trinitarian, as you will see. Don't forget that there are at least three (possibly more) trinitarian doctrines. More about that later. [she never revealed that]

I am very familiar with the propositions on which the orthodox doctrine is based. The problem is, the statements are not consistent; and I can only assume that the ambiguity was deliberate on the part of whoever made up this list. [* refer below]

Let's make ALL the statements use "God" in the substantive sense. Then-

1. There is only one God (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son (False)
4. That one God is the Spirit (False)

Now let's make ALL the statements use "God" in a qualitative sense. Better yet, let's use the term "divine".

1. There is only one who is divine (False)
2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
3. The Son is divine. (True. As God's own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
4. God's Spirit is divine. (True. How could God's Spirit be anything else.)

You see the problem. There are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified by Jesus himself as the Father. And to that testimony all the biblical writers agree. ....'

----
* referring to: Trinity @ Bible.org : (unfortunately the site has changes and the link no longer works)

'Trinity is a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (AD. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:

1. That God is one, and that there is but one God. (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30_

2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

This is just one of the examples, but my opening post -- is less adventurous, and hence not focused on too wide a stream of thoughts. As you can see, I only focused on two of many possible passages, which could be explored.

I'll leave that open then, now that I've posted up the prior details -- please feel free to explore this, anyway you deem useful.

Kindly,
Eric.

[edit:add: the link: http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Trinity ]

Eric,

How is any of this related to biblical languages?

Catman
08-08-2014, 08:11 AM
Eric,

How is any of this related to biblical languages?

I don't know yet, but I'm trying to figure that out. ( coughs nervously )

In my opening post I referred to two verses - John 14:28 & 1 Corinthians 15:28. Right?
They are both in the Bible, hence Biblical. They both consist of language. Biblical Language. Correct?
Why did I choose them?
I find they are very tricky passages to understand, in the light of what is taught about Jesus. i.e. Jesus is God. Fine?
So, I began unpacking what I could to provide a good English and Greek equivalent - hoping to invigorate some good commentary.
Some t-webbers have provided some valuable insights, and others such as robrecht and yourself have questions about whether this is a Biblical Languages question. I think it is. I am in BL301, and I have two passages that are very difficult for me to place, considering what I know about who Jesus is.
They make me feel uncomfortable, for if Jesus isn't God, then who is he?

I hope this will provide you with some insight into my first post, in too many years -- I'm afraid my dullness is shining too brightly.

Eric

John Reece
08-08-2014, 08:48 AM
I don't know yet, but I'm trying to figure that out. ( coughs nervously )

In my opening post I referred to two verses - John 14:28 & 1 Corinthians 15:28. Right?
They are both in the Bible, hence Biblical. They both consist of language. Biblical Language. Correct?
Why did I choose them?
I find they are very tricky passages to understand, in the light of what is taught about Jesus. i.e. Jesus is God. Fine?
So, I began unpacking what I could to provide a good English and Greek equivalent - hoping to invigorate some good commentary.
Some t-webbers have provided some valuable insights, and others such as robrecht and yourself have questions about whether this is a Biblical Languages question. I think it is. I am in BL301, and I have two passages that are very difficult for me to place, considering what I know about who Jesus is.
They make me feel uncomfortable, for if Jesus isn't God, then who is he?

I hope this will provide you with some insight into my first post, in too many years -- I'm afraid my dullness is shining too brightly.

Eric

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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=49).

Catman
08-08-2014, 10:47 AM
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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=49).

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

The thing is that most people wander 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 not it's a hot issue.
Is it that 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 )

Take for instance the two passages in my opening post, 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.

tabibito
08-08-2014, 10:58 AM
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.

Catman
08-08-2014, 12:24 PM
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?

Catman
08-08-2014, 01:01 PM
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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=49).

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 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A16&version=ESV#fen-ESV-29731a)] was manifested in the flesh, [Notice how the word 'God' in the KJV, has been changed to 'He' in the ESV]
vindicated[b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A16&version=ESV#fen-ESV-29731b)] by the Spirit,[c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A16&version=ESV#fen-ESV-29731c)]
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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85695&viewfull=1#post85695), 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 (http://Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.):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?

John Reece
08-08-2014, 03:13 PM
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.

Catman
08-08-2014, 04:16 PM
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.

1431

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

Bye-bye.

foudroyant
08-08-2014, 05:39 PM
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?

Catman
08-09-2014, 05:13 AM
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.

Catman
08-09-2014, 05:17 AM
Thank you so much, for making this readable. :thumb: I look forward, to any further details you have to share with us -- with regard to 'the Johannine or Pauline contexts' -- Catman.


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.

Catman
08-09-2014, 08:16 AM
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

Catman
08-09-2014, 08:54 AM
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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?444-Paul-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?444-Paul-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-Jesus&p=82625&viewfull=1#post82625) ? :wink:

Catman

Catman
08-09-2014, 09:27 AM
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.


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.

Catman
08-09-2014, 10:31 AM
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 (http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801) -- 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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85440&viewfull=1#post85440) + commentary (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85601&viewfull=1#post85601)) and (1 Corinthians 15:24 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85435&viewfull=1#post85435) + commentary (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85608&viewfull=1#post85608)) will do.



In earnest,
Catman

Catman
08-09-2014, 02:13 PM
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,
(http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+5-6/) (http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+5-6/)after the order of Melchizedek.” (http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+5-6/)

foudroyant
08-09-2014, 05:37 PM
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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?444-Paul-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?444-Paul-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-Jesus&p=82625&viewfull=1#post82625) ? :wink:

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/showthread.php?444-Paul-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-Jesus/page5

Catman
08-09-2014, 06:17 PM
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/showthread.php?444-Paul-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-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?