Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

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

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

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

ὁ Λόγος

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Alternatively, the later interpretaters of Christian writers have placed too much emphasis on Platonic thinking when trying to understand scriptures and Christian writers.
    You would do well to read up on the early history of your religion from the fourth century.

    You could also inform yourself about the fourth century ecclesiastics known as the Cappadocian Fathers, [Basil the Great, Basil's younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their close friend, Gregory of Nazianzus]. All three of these men were highly educated including in Greek philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism. Gregory of Nazianus’ [i]Five Orations[i/i] are the fullest and most coherent statement of Nicene orthodoxy. He acknowledges the weakness of his argument in the problem of trying to reconcile how a Jesus who was “one in substance with the Father” could suffer human pain and emotions, yet despite some of their flaws these five works were considered a tour de force and continued to be recognised as such for some considerable time


    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Another weakness of the Oxford interpretation is that of assuming the word's meaning from other contexts more than from its use in the passage itself.
    I am sure that the editors of that work and the authors of the works cited in the article will be most appreciative of your comments.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
      Didn't say that. Would you please re-read my post and address the grammar ? On this score, could you show us a verse where the preposition πρὸς is used to connote that a "person" is "with" another "person" in a construction like John 1:1b ( preposition πρὸς + a stative "to be" verb, like ἦν) ?
      How about this?

      Νῦν ἠρξάμην λαλῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον, ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι γῆ καὶ σποδός... (Ge 18:27)

      But you are ignoring the verse where John writes "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), which indicates clearly that the Word was considered a person by John.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #18
        Matthew 13:56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; Are not his sisters all with us?
        Mark 6:3 ditto
        Matthew 19:9 ἕως πότε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔσομαι; How long will I be with you?
        Matthew 14:49 καθʼ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ Each day I was with you...
        1 Thessalonians 3:4 γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἦμεν In fact, when I was with you

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          How about this?

          Νῦν ἠρξάμην λαλῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον, ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι γῆ καὶ σποδός... (Ge 18:27)


          Lee
          λαλῆσαι is not a "to be" verb.

          But you are ignoring the verse where John writes "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), which indicates clearly that the Word was considered a person by John.

          Blessings,
          If the Word was already a person, it could not possibly become a human person , now could it ? You would end up with two people who are the "one" Jesus,-- a Divine person and a human person, (weird, ). FWIW, flesh (or σὰρξ) in this verse is a synecdoche.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
            Matthew 13:56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; Are not his sisters all with us?
            You have plurals here, so it is not the same construction as John 1:1b where both substantives are singular. But this is a good try.


            Mark 6:3 ditto
            Ditto.


            Matthew 19:9 ἕως πότε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔσομαι; How long will I be with you?
            Unfortunately here again, there is a plural (see red above).


            Matthew 14:49 καθʼ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ Each day I was with you...
            Same problem.

            1 Thessalonians 3:4 γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἦμεν In fact, when I was with you
            Both substantives are plural. ...By the way, not "when I (sing.) was with you (pl)," but "when we (ἦμεν) were with you." Had the author meant "I," he would have used ἤμην.
            Last edited by Unitarian101; 07-22-2020, 05:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Really? You think Greek has a preposition for which a thing can be with a thing, and a person can be with a thing, and a thing can be with a person, and a person can be with people, but the grammar forbids a person from being with a person?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
                Really? You think Greek has a preposition for which a thing can be with a thing, and a person can be with a thing, and a thing can be with a person, and a person can be with people, but the grammar forbids a person from being with a person?
                No. It's just that biblical Greek does not use πρός + accusative with a be verb to ever say that one person is with another person, as far as I can tell. If you have a counter example, I would like to see it.

                The way to do this is with μετ’ / μετὰ and genitive, where we have at least a couple of examples from the Gospel of John alone, that I know of :


                ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς μετ’ αὐτοῦ (John 3:2)

                ὁ Πατὴρ μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν (John 16:32)

                Comment


                • #23
                  As we can see, when Biblical Greek wants to say that one person is with another, it uses μετὰ and genitive in a construction like John 1:1b. The following from the LXX came to my remembrance:

                  καὶ ἔσται ὁ θεὸς μετὰ σοῦ
                  Exodus 18:19

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                    If the Word was already a person, it could not possibly become a human person , now could it ? You would end up with two people who are the "one" Jesus,-- a Divine person and a human person, (weird, ).
                    Or the divine person became human! There need not be two people here.

                    FWIW, flesh (or σὰρξ) in this verse is a synecdoche.
                    Well, yes, for "person", for the whole person.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Source: Theological Dictionary of the NT

                      In passive forms of verbs of motion, which have the sense of the perfect and which are to be construed intransitively, πρός takes on the meaning of “with,” “by,” “before” someone or something even though it is used with the accusative, for the perfect expresses both the movement and also the ensuing state, and in this case the latter is the more important.

                      Examples: ἦν ὅλη ἡ πόλις ἐπισυνηγμένη πρὸς τὴν θύραν, “at the door,” Mk. 1:33; δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν, Mk. 11:4; ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα, “he lay at the door.” Lk. 16:20; (συγ) καθήμενος … πρὸς τὸ φῶς, Mk. 14:54 par. Lk. 22:56; ἡ ἀχίνη πρὸς τὴν π̔ίζαν … κεῖται, “lies at the root,” Mt. 3:10 par. Lk. 3:9.

                      This construction can be loosely used in cases where there is no relation to a verb of motion.

                      Examples with εἶναι: πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν: “among,” Mt. 13:56; ἕως πότε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔσομαι, Mk. 9:19 (μεθʼ ὑμῶν in Mt. 17:17); ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν “with,” Jn. 1:1 f. Cf. ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια … διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς in Gl. 2:5 and also with a simple μένειν and various compounds.

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      Note that "μετὰ" and "πρὸς" are used interchangeably above.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Or the divine person became human! There need not be two people here.


                        Well, yes, for "person", for the whole person.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        So the "Divine person" became "human" but not a "human person" ? Isn't that fake humanity ?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Source: Theological Dictionary of the NT

                          In passive forms of verbs of motion, which have the sense of the perfect and which are to be construed intransitively, πρός takes on the meaning of “with,” “by,” “before” someone or something even though it is used with the accusative, for the perfect expresses both the movement and also the ensuing state, and in this case the latter is the more important.

                          Examples: ἦν ὅλη ἡ πόλις ἐπισυνηγμένη πρὸς τὴν θύραν, “at the door,” Mk. 1:33; δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν, Mk. 11:4; ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα, “he lay at the door.” Lk. 16:20; (συγ) καθήμενος … πρὸς τὸ φῶς, Mk. 14:54 par. Lk. 22:56; ἡ ἀχίνη πρὸς τὴν π̔ίζαν … κεῖται, “lies at the root,” Mt. 3:10 par. Lk. 3:9.

                          This construction can be loosely used in cases where there is no relation to a verb of motion.

                          Examples with εἶναι: πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν: “among,” Mt. 13:56; ἕως πότε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔσομαι, Mk. 9:19 (μεθʼ ὑμῶν in Mt. 17:17); ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν “with,” Jn. 1:1 f. Cf. ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια … διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς in Gl. 2:5 and also with a simple μένειν and various compounds.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Note that "μετὰ" and "πρὸς" are used interchangeably above.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          Not sure what you are trying to do there.

                          Do you have an example of a grammatical construction like John 1:1b (substantive A + be verb + πρός + substantive B) where each of the two substantives (A and B) respectively denotes a "person" ?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                            So the "Divine person" became "human" but not a "human person" ? Isn't that fake humanity ?
                            But "became human" means "became a human person". Jesus was fully God, and fully human. But "the Word became flesh" shows that John did not think of the Logos as a mere thing.

                            Not sure what you are trying to do there.
                            TDNT states that "pros" has a range of meaning that includes "with", which is exemplified in Mark 9:19 ("pros") and Matthew 17:17 ("meta").

                            Do you have an example of a grammatical construction like John 1:1b (substantive A + be verb + πρός + substantive B) where each of the two substantives (A and B) respectively denotes a "person" ?
                            Again, the Logos clearly refers to a person, as does "the life" here:

                            "καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν ..." (1 John 1:2)

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              But "became human" means "became a human person". Jesus was fully God, and fully human. But "the Word became flesh" shows that John did not think of the Logos as a mere thing.


                              TDNT states that "pros" has a range of meaning that includes "with", which is exemplified in Mark 9:19 ("pros") and Matthew 17:17 ("meta").


                              Again, the Logos clearly refers to a person, as does "the life" here:

                              "καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν ..." (1 John 1:2)

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              (1) Are you aware that Trinitarian Orthodoxy denies that to be "human" is to be "a human person" in the case of Jesus ? Read up on the essential Trinitarian doctrine of anhypostasis.

                              (2) If Jesus is "a human person," then you either have to conclude that he is two people ("a human person" and "a Divine person"), the error of Nestorius, or else deny that he is a Divine person .

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

                                TDNT states that "pros" has a range of meaning that includes "with", which is exemplified in Mark 9:19 ("pros") and Matthew 17:17 ("meta").
                                For the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to go along with the notion that it can mean "with."



                                Again, the Logos clearly refers to a person, as does "the life" here:
                                "καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν ..." (1 John 1:2)

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                This is not an example of a grammatical construction like John 1:1b (substantive A + be verb + πρός + substantive B) where each of the two substantives (A and B) respectively denotes a "person."

                                Comment

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