The Word was a god like Moses according to BDAG [Archive]

OldShepherd

June 25th 2003, 01:37 AM

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132006#post132006)
Cal_Minian:

Now that I know some on this forum have Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich it might be a good time to discuss in what way the word QEOS is used of the Christ in the NT according to the lastest Greek scholarship.

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;

Notice how it starts out with Mark 10:18 "Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Also note that to understand how the Word is QEOS at John 1:1 we are told to compare Exodus 7:1? "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Is this a serious post? It is a good example of quoting out-of-context. First, Mark 10:18 is quoted. Where does Jesus deny that He is good? And where does Jesus deny that He is God? Jesus does NOT deny that He is good, elsewhere He calls Himself the "Good Shepherd," ergo if only God is good, then Jesus must be . . .

And while the lexicons and current scholarship are essential tools, we cannot overlook those who actually speak, read and write the languages. Here are two Jewish translations of Ex 7:1. ORT is an Orthodox Jewish site.
Kaplan-ORT Ex 7:1 God said to Moses, 'Observe! I will be making you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=7#P1

JPS Ex 7:1 And HaShem said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in G-d's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Exodus7.htm#1

"Also note that to understand how the Word is QEOS at John 1:1 we are told to compare Exodus 7:1?" That is NOT what the article is saying at all. Here is the pertinent section
In any event Q. (QeoV) certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)
The citation you misquoted merely points out problems, no doubt objections raised by non-Trinitarians. But the article very clearly states that, "Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition."

Jaltus

June 25th 2003, 12:25 PM

Interesting, since Exodus 7:1 literally reads "I gave you God to (for) Pharoah."

There is nothing that says I made you God, just I gave you God.

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 03:30 PM

Today @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132340#post132340)
Jaltus:

Interesting, since Exodus 7:1 literally reads "I gave you God to (for) Pharoah."

There is nothing that says I made you God, just I gave you God.

Dear Jaltus,

Below are Exodus 7:1 in the KJV (which I quoted in the original post) the Brenton Septuagint and the Greek of the LXX. As you can see, both the KJV which was translated from the Hebrew text and the Brenton Septuagint which was translated from the Greek Septuagint text both render the Hebrew and Greek respetively " a god." Now THAT is interesting! Perhaps that is why BDAG compares Exodus 7:1 to John 1:1.

Exodus 7:1

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. - KJV

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet . Brenton LXX

kai eipen kurioj pros Mwushn legwn idou dedwka se qeon Faraw kai Aarwn o avdelfos sou estai sou profhths - LXX

As for why the word " make" is used, according to BDB page 681 the Hebrew word used here, נ ת ן , means " Make , constitute."

The Greek didwmi according to BDAG 242-243 gives a wide range of meanings including "produce, make , cause."

Why does the rendering "make" surprise you? I find it in many English translations.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 04:32 PM

Yesterday @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132104#post132104)
OldShepherd:

Cal:
Notice how it starts out with Mark 10:18 &quot;Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.&quot;

Also note that to understand how the Word is QEOS at John 1:1 we are told to compare Exodus 7:1? &quot;And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd,
Is this a serious post? It is a good example of quoting out-of-context. First, Mark 10:18 is quoted. Where does Jesus deny that He is good? And where does Jesus deny that He is God? Jesus does NOT deny that He is good, elsewhere He calls Himself the "Good Shepherd," ergo if only God is good, then Jesus must be . . .

And while the lexicons and current scholarship are essential tools, we cannot overlook those who actually speak, read and write the languages. Here are two Jewish translations of Ex 7:1. ORT is an Orthodox Jewish site.
Kaplan-ORT Ex 7:1 God said to Moses, 'Observe! I will be making you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=7#P1

JPS Ex 7:1 And HaShem said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in G-d's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Exodus7.htm#1

"Also note that to understand how the Word is QEOS at John 1:1 we are told to compare Exodus 7:1?" That is NOT what the article is saying at all. Here is the pertinent section
In any event Q. (QeoV) certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)
The citation you misquoted merely points out problems, no doubt objections raised by non-Trinitarians. But the article very clearly states that, "Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition."

Dear OldShepherd,
You evidently do not agree with the Fathers who felt that Jesus was saying that 'no one is good but my Father who is in heaven." See my new thread in this forum for details. I guarantee you'll love it!

In addition, look at BDAG more closely. They say that the first instance of QEOS (the Father) has the sense of God in the monotheistic tradition but that the second one of the Word does not. They do compare the Word as QEOS with Exodus 7:1, that is what they mean by the abreviation (cp.) If they meant to contrast the definition they would say (but cp.) which they employ after 1John 5:20 which they say is open to question.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Jaltus

June 25th 2003, 05:38 PM

NTN (the Hebrew) means to give, put, or set (BDB p. 678), not to make or constitute.

Sorry, try again.

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 05:56 PM

Today @ 02:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132568#post132568)
Jaltus:

NTN (the Hebrew) means to give, put, or set (BDB p. 678), not to make or constitute.

Sorry, try again.

Dear Jaltus,
NTN is found from pages 678-681. The definition that applies to NTN for Exodus 7:1 is found on page 681 at the top left of the page in section 3.

I understand that you are quite advanced in your Greek studies. Have you started Hebrew yet?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Jaltus

June 25th 2003, 06:06 PM

3 years of Hebrew I am trying hard to forget.

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 06:12 PM

Today @ 03:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132595#post132595)
Jaltus:

3 years of Hebrew I am trying hard to forget.

Use it or lose it, Jaltus!

Regards,
Cal

Jaltus

June 25th 2003, 06:13 PM

Bah, one more OT class to go, then I can safely lose it.

dizzle

June 25th 2003, 06:36 PM

What are your Hebrew qualifications Cal?

Pilgrim

June 25th 2003, 07:09 PM

Comparing BDB and Halladay and TDOT I find the only BDB gives Ex 7 as and example of NTN being "To Make" In fact the other sources do not even give "to Make" as a primary definition at all, rather it falls under the nif. tense definition of "be given away" as a further explanation and even then is given the caveat " = become"

In my initial translation I did not even consider "to make" as an option. What we are learning here is that dependance on the lexicons alone is not enough.

Pilgrim

GrayPilgrim

June 25th 2003, 07:22 PM

Pilgrim anticipated my post; as VanGemeren said in his class on the Wisdom Psalms try to forget BDB, the schoalrship in there is over 100 years old and its cognate information is less than helpful. HALOT, TDOT, DCH (Dictionary of Classical Hebrew) or NIDOTTE have much more upto date information. Here is HALOT's entry:

tn: MHeb.; Arm. pf. only Yaud., OArm. and EgArm. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 188); OSin. tn (Albright Proto-Sin. 44) otherwise replaced by bhy; impf. Zendjirli, T. Halaf, Pehl. EgArm. Driver Arm. Docs., Nab. Palm., ï BArm. JArm. Sam. (Ben-H. 2:655b), Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 307b), CPArm. ytl and Syr. nettel < y/netten l (Brockelmann Grundriss 1:291); ytn Ug. (Gordon Textbook §19:1169; Aistleitner 1255; cf. Fisher Parallels 1: p. 23 no. 17; Fisher Parallels 2: p. 15, no. 22f; p. 22 no. 37; as well as ntn Gordon Textbook §19:1716a; Dahood Ug-Heb. 66) and Ph. (Harris Gramm. 108f; Friedrich §158-160); Amor. Yantin-, rarely Yatin- (Huffmon 244); Akk. nadaÒnu (AHw. 701a); Can. yudanu and simil. (Böhl Spr. §30c, d) and Taanach (Albright BASOR 94:23, line 20); missing in Arb.; OSArb. only personal name ntn (Conti 191b) and Eth. (Leslau 35); Nöldeke Neue Beitr. 192f: orig. biradical, n is an augment of the root, see vSoden Gramm. §102b; R. Meyer Gramm. §16, 3b.

qal (ca. 1919 times): pf. !t†'Ænt;n", hn"t†'Æhn"t.n†', ¿hÀT't;n: (rd. thus 2S 2241), T.t;n" (yT.t;n" Ezk 1618, Bauer-L. Heb. 310k), yTit†'n", Wnt.n†' (WNt†'n" Ezk 2719, Bauer-L. Heb. 218c), ~T,t;n>, WNt;n", Ant†'n>, $'n>t†'n>, ynIn†'t'n>, wyTiÆWhyTit;n>; impf. !teYIw: (Sec. oui?eqqen, Brönno 25. 27), -nT,yI, hn"T.a,w", !TenI (!T;nI Ju 165 Gesenius-K. §66h, Bergsträsser 2:123d), WNn<T.yI, $'n>T,yI, AnT.Ti Ex 2229 (Bauer-L. Heb. 337n); impv. ¿-ÀnTe, -nT,, ynIT., ynIt†e Is 436 (R. Meyer Gramm. §76, 3 b), WnT., ~nEÆWhnET.; hN"n<T., inf. !ton>, -nt'n> usually tTe < *tint, ttel' -tt,l†', !T,til., (1K 619 rd. ttel' or *tn<t,ñl'), ATTi, yTiTi, WnTeTi, on hn"T. Ps 82 cf. Donner ZAW 79 (1967):324f, !¿AÀton"; pt. !te¿AÀnO, $'n>t,nO, !Wtn", ~ynIWtÆtun>, tAnWtn>; qal pass. ï hof.: cf. THAT 2:117ff.

—1. to give, with l. to someone Gn 36, present 2311, payment Ps 498, with la, to Gn 187 (cf. Labuschagne Fschr. Beek 179f), to deliver Ex 1518, to give in exchange Pr 3124.

—2. with two acc., to present someone with something Jos 1519 Is 274 Jr 91 Ezr 98; to give up 1K 1826 Ezk 458, to sell Gn 234.9.13 :: 11 (cf. Lehmann BASOR 129:15ff); to be the cause of Pr 1010 (grief), 1310 (dispute); with la, tAa to offer Dt 132, with taef.m; to grant Est 218, with hl've (Q hl'aev.) to fulfil 1S 117, with Alyxe to produce, bring Jl 222, with Ayr>Pi Zech 812 Ps 13, with Hl'Wby> Zech 812, with ~k,P.n>[; to drive Ezk 368.

—3. with hm'WrT. Ex 3014, xb;z< Qoh 417, to offer a son hwhyl 1S 111; pt. pass. with l. (ï 12) determined, prepared Nu 39 816 1C 633.

—4. hV'ail. !t;n" to give to a woman Gn 304; l. !t;n" to relinquish Est 311; ynEp.li Ån" to set before Jr 4410; n"ÅdM'[i Ån" to associate Gn 312; l. Ån" to requite Jr 1710; @s,K,B; Ån" to turn into money Dt 1425; B. Ån" to give for Jl 43 Ezk 2716. cj. 13 (rd. vp,n< and %ber'[]m;B.) cj. 14 (rd. %yIn"Abz>[iB.). cj. 17 (rd. yJexi and %ber'[]m;B.), = d[;B. Ån" Jb 24.

—5. with ATb.vi Ex 2119 ï bvy 3 b; with dy" ï dy" 2 a; with ATb.k'v. etc. Lv 1820.23 2015 Nu 520 ï *tb,kov..

—6. !TeyI ymi (Brockelmann Heb. Syb. §9) who gives?, meaning would that it may be so! (not the same as Akk. mannu inamdin, see Lambert Wisdom 241 lines 45-47 and note on p. 247, bilingual proverbs); Jongeling VT 24 (1974):32ff): br,[, !TeyI ymi would that it were evening! Dt 2867, yli-nT,yI ymi if only someone would give me! Ps 557, ynInET.yI ymi would that I may be given! Jr 91, WnteWm !TeyI ymi would that we were dead! Ex 163 etc.; differently Jb 144 3131 can anyone change it (to white)? (Fohrer Hiob 424 and 426 :: Jongeling VT 24 (1974) 32ff).

—7. to hand down (knowledge) Pr 99, to announce tpeAm 1K 133.5.

—8. with acc. and l. with inf. to allow (Can. Youngblood BASOR 168 (1962):26): $'yTit;n> [;GOn>li I have (not) allowed you to touch Gn 206 ï 317 Ex 319 Nu 2213 Jos 1019, ? cj. Jr 3914 (Rudolph(3 )245); rd. rbo[]l; Nu 2021 and 2123, rd. ~WnT.yI Hos 54; yxiWr bveh' ynInET.yI he will (not) let me get my breath Jb 918; = l. !t;n" with l. with inf. Est 811 Ps 5523 (without l.), 2C 2010; dy:B. !t;n" with l. with inf. charged him to 1C 167.

—9. with l. to surrender to someone Lam 330; cf. Mari ana qaÒt PN mulluÖ to hand over to someone, deliver up (AHw. 598; Heintz VTSupp. 17 (1969):125ff), @k;B. !t;n" to deliver into the hand Ju 613; = dy:B. Ån" Ju 328 47 and elsewhere, cf. vRad Der heilige Krieg (1951):4-9; W. Richter BBB 18(2), 21ff; O. Keel Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im AT (1974):47(1); Stolz ATANT 60 (1972):21f; ynEp.li Ån" to hand over to Dt 231 Ju 119; n"Ån" with acc. to deliver up Ps 4412 Mi 52; ABli Ån" and Avp.n: Ån" with l. with inf. to devote oneself to something in order to 1C 2219.

—10. Axre Ån" to give off its smell Song 112, n"Ån" Any[e to show its shine Pr 2331; @To Ån" to beat the drum, tambourine Ps 813.

—11. la, wyn"P' Ån" (cf. Ug. ntn pnm Caquot-S. Textes 120); Akk. nadaÒnu paÒna ana (AHw. 702b), paÒniÒ/paÒnam sëakaÒnu ana + inf. (AHw. 819b, 15) to direct one’s face towards Da 93, with B. against Lv 1710; varo Ån" with l. with inf. to take it into one’s head to Neh 917; :: abs. varo Ån" to submit oneself to a leader Nu 144; ABli Ån" with inf. to make up one’s mind to Qoh 113.17 816, with l. to pay attention to 721 89; l. hl'p.Ti Ån" to make improper utterances Jb 122.

—12. to set, place, lay: ~h,yPi-l[; Ån" he put something into his mouth Mi 35; hP, rp'['B, Ån" (meaning to be meekly silent) Lam 329; n"Ån" ble-la, to put into the heart Neh 75, = bleB. Ezr 727, ABli-la, Ån" to take to one’s heart Qoh 72; wyn"P' xk;nO Ån" to set before oneself, meaning to consider properly Ezk 143 (parallel with ~yfi of 4); aSeki Jr 115, !Ara] 2C 353 (see Rudolph 326), rWsaeh' tyBe Jr 3715, with !yBe Ex 3018, hM'v†' 3018, with B. Gn 117 913, varol. to set one’s mind to Pr 49; to set up Lv 261; with B. to bring into Gn 4148; to put into Dt 1517, to take into Ps 1014, to set (fire) to Ezk 308.14, to set against 269; with l[; Nu 518, with la, Jr 2926; with l[; to add to Lv 215; !t;n: lAq to raise the voice: a) of people Gn 452 of birds Ps 10412 and elsewhere; b) of Yahweh: to thunder 2S 2214; Jr 2530 Jl 416 Am 12 and elsewhere (without lAq Jr 1013 5116), cf. Akk. nadaÒnu rigma (EA 147:13), Ug. (y)tn ql (Fisher Parallels 1: p. 23 no. 17); also !t;n" lAqB. of God Ps 467, 6834, of the people Jr 128, of lions Jr 215; l. lAq !t;n" to shout Pr 23, with l[; in a hostile sense Jr 416; hL'hiq. Ån" to hold an assembly Neh 57; l[; hb'[eAT Ån" to impose (punishment on someone for) abomination Ezk 73; B. ~D' Ån" to bring blood (guilt) within (Israel) Dt 218; l[; Ån" to set (the nations) against Ezk 198 (Zimmerli 419), ~D' Ån" l[; to lay blood (guilt) on Jon 114; to bring (or carry) away (vDyck VT 18 (1968):21ff) meaning to pour out blood upon Ezk 248 (parallel with ~yfi and %p;v' of 7) 1K 25, rain Ps 10532; tx;T; Ån" to put someone into a position instead of someone else 1K 235; *!Wtn" stationed, resident Ezr 817K see Rudolph 80); alt. with Q ï *!ytin"; possibly a gloss.

—13. with two acc., to turn someone into something (parallel with ~yf) ~yIAG !Amh]-ba; $'yTit;n> to make the father of a multitude of nations Gn 175, yKir>D; ~ymiT' Ån" he made my way blameless Ps 1833 (:: 2S 2233 rTeY:w:, rtn, ? rd. rT;a,w"); ï Ex 71 Dt 287 Jr 15; with acc. and l.: yAgl. wyTit;n> Gn 1720 484 Is 496 Jr 118 etc.; hl'a'l. Ån" to turn into (the object of) an oath Nu 521 Jr 249, lv'm'l. into a laughing-stock 2C 720; with acc. and K.: lxer'K. Ån" Ru 411, Is 412 (rd. ~nET.yI), 1K 1027; with acc. and ynEp.li (= l. ?) 1S 116 (cf. Stoebe KAT 8/1:91); ~ymix]r;l. Ån" ynEp.li to let someone find compassion 1K 850 Ps 10646 Neh 111, ~ymix]r;l.W ds,x,l. Ån" Da 19.

—Emendations: Jr 1013 and 5116 rd. %T;nI ($tn nif.); Ps 7215 and Pr 1310 rd. !T;yUw> (ï hof.); Pr 1212 ï II !ty, alt. !t'yaeB..

nif: (83 times): pf. !T;nI, hn"T.nI, hn"T†'nI (Neh 1310, 3rd. pl. fem., Bauer-L. Heb. 315o; Bergsträsser 2:15b), ~T,T;nI, WNT;nI; impf. !teN"yI, !t,N"ñyI Lv 2420 2S 216K; inf. !teN"hi, !AtN"hii; pt. !T'nI:

—1. to be given Ex 516 Is 3316; tAyn"m. Neh 1310; (law) to be proclaimed Est 314; to be given into someone’s hand (authority) Gn 92 and often; l. hV'ail. hn"T.nI to be given as a wife Gn 3814 1S 1819; rv,a] l[; rp,se ÅnI a scroll given to someone who (cannot read) Is 2912; with dy:-l[; to be handed over 2K 227, with l., to be given as, i.e. for Ezk 1115 154; with l. someone endowed with 2C 213, = with dy:B. 2C 3416;

—2. to be sacrificed as Is 5112 (:: Gerleman VT 21 (1971):523f), to be given up Ezk 3114, with l. to be made Ezk 4711, with l[; to be laid on Da 812;

—3. misc.: to be granted Est 213, to be allowed Est 53.6; to be laid, placed Ezk 3223; Hos 810 for WnT.yI rd. (?) WnT.nI (cf. I. Willi-Plein BZAW 123 (1973):167).

pass. qal (trad. hof.; Can. yudanu, see above; Bauer-L. Heb. 286 l, m.): impf. !T;yU: to be given Nu 2654 325 (with acc., Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §35d) 2S 216 Q 2K 517, Jb 2815, cj. Is 539; hV'ail. !T;yU (with ta, !) to be given as a wife 1K 221; with l[; water put on seed Lv 1138; cj. !T;yU to be allowed Pr 1024; cj. Jb 3710;

—Emendations: 2S 189 (rd. lT'YIw:: hlt nif. l :: n ï Kennedy 89). †

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 07:26 PM

Today @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132625#post132625)
Dee Dee Warren:

What are your Hebrew qualifications Cal?

Dear DeeDee,
I have systematically studied through Page Kelley including the workbook and frequently consult Seow. I would say I have about 6 years total exposure with perhaps 3 years intensive study. I know the orthography and the grammar and can translate Hebrew, albeit laboriously. I have a friend who TA's Hebrew at a Seminary who tells me that if their first year students can use Brown-Driver-Briggs by the end of the year they have accomplished what they have set out to learn. I am proficient in the use of BDB. I can find passages and phrases from my BHS but to be honest I don’t like it much. Hebrew is hard for me. I have studied Greek for about 9 years and 5 years of those were very intensive. My Greek is much better than my Hebrew and I can read passages of Greek, especially John, without the need to translate into English. After about the third year of intensive study the idiom and word order of Greek started to come to me and I am grateful for that. As far as I am concerned, no one really finishes learning these languages. I try to use them each week and generally multiple times per week. I have a love for the original languages and an obsession with them that cannot be taught at a Seminary, one needs to have that drive from within. Someone who is forced to take the languages to become a Pastor but does not see the need for them never really learned. Those who learned it but do not continue using it will not retain it. Therefore if one has a love for the original languages and pursues it with intensity one step at a time they will be the tortoise in the race with the hare. The self-taught individual who loves the languages after 10 years will be much more proficient that the Seminarian who did not like them to begin with and/or did not continue to use them.

That’s my 2 cents.

Kind Regards,
Cal

dizzle

June 25th 2003, 07:28 PM

Thank you, now was that so hard?

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 07:40 PM

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132669#post132669)
GrayPilgrim:

Pilgrim anticipated my post; as VanGemeren said in his class on the Wisdom Psalms try to forget BDB, the schoalrship in there is over 100 years old and its cognate information is less than helpful. HALOT, TDOT, DCH (Dictionary of Classical Hebrew) or NIDOTTE have much more upto date information. Here is HALOT's entry:

Dear GrayPilgrim,
My copy of Koehler/Baumgartner on page 643b has an entry for "make a person for" and lists Exodus 7:1 as an example of this idiom.

Gesenius is old, granted, but on page 573 they list in section (3) "to make" also for Exodus 7:1.

I did not read through your entire entry. Can you show me what they specifically say for Exodus 7:1? My BDB , KB and Gesenius all specificly list Exodus 7:1 as an example of NTN for "make."

If you don't have a specific reference for Exodus 7:1 in your references then perhaps you missed it. That would make your example an argument from silence. :teeth:

Kind Regards,
Cal

GrayPilgrim

June 25th 2003, 08:49 PM

—13. with two acc., to turn someone into something (parallel with ~yf) ~yIAG !Amh]-ba; $'yTit;n> to make the father of a multitude of nations Gn 175, yKir>D; ~ymiT' Ån" he made my way blameless Ps 1833 (:: 2S 2233 rTeY:w:, rtn, ? rd. rT;a,w"); ï Ex 71 Dt 287 Jr 15; with acc. and l.: yAgl. wyTit;n> Gn 1720 484 Is 496 Jr 118 etc.; hl'a'l. Ån" to turn into (the object of) an oath Nu 521 Jr 249, lv'm'l. into a laughing-stock 2C 720; with acc. and K.: lxer'K. Ån" Ru 411, Is 412 (rd. ~nET.yI), 1K 1027; with acc. and ynEp.li (= l. ?) 1S 116 (cf. Stoebe KAT 8/1:91); ~ymix]r;l. Ån" ynEp.li to let someone find compassion 1K 850 Ps 10646 Neh 111, ~ymix]r;l.W ds,x,l. Ån" Da 19.

Notice that it is more in the since of שים than in the sense of עשה as your argument presuposes.

GP:gpl:

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 09:06 PM

Today @ 05:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132723#post132723)
GrayPilgrim:

Notice that it is more in the since of &#1513;&#1497;&#1501; than in the sense of &#1506;&#1513;&#1492; as your argument presuposes.

GP:gpl:

Dear GP,
What exactly do you think my argument is? I have not yet presented one. I merely quoted the KJV and Brenton Septuagint. Maybe we are in agreement as to the significance of the wording here.

Best Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 25th 2003, 10:58 PM

Today @ 09:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132671#post132671)
Cal_Minian:

Dear DeeDee,
I have systematically studied through Page Kelley including the workbook and frequently consult Seow.

Interesting! I studied under Page Kelley myself at that little school on Lexington road.

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 01:08 AM

Today @ 06:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132521#post132521)

You evidently do not agree with the Fathers who felt that Jesus was saying that 'no one is good but my Father who is in heaven." See my new thread in this forum for details. I guarantee you'll love it!

Notice how it starts out with Mark 10:18 &amp;quot;Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.&amp;quot;

Please do read that thread. You will see how much I did “love” it.

Also note that to understand how the Word is QEOS at John 1:1 we are told to compare Exodus 7:1? &amp;quot;And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

They do compare the Word as QEOS with Exodus 7:1, that is what they mean by the abreviation (cp.) If they meant to contrast the definition they would say (but cp.) which they employ after 1John 5:20 which they say is open to question.

It is NOT a direct comparison but a contrast that is why they use the words "On the problem raised by such attribution" it IS a contrast. There IS a problem, probably due to objections of anti-Trinitarians. Then the sentence continues, “s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;

In addition, look at BDAG more closely. They say that the first instance of QEOS (the Father) has the sense of God in the monotheistic tradition but that the second one of the Word does not.

Here is your complete quote again. Where is the "second instance"?

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;

Again I repeat. “In any event Q. [qeoV] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition."

AVmetro

June 26th 2003, 04:07 AM

Basically - Originally, God was to speak through Moses to Pharoah. Howbeit, Moses being poor in the oral communications dept. necessitated that God work through Moses who would then in turn work through Aaron. Hence, Moses would become "God" and Aaron his "prophet". The whole ordeal is strictly analogous of what was supposed to occur. Why do some people have such a problem understanding this?

Cal_Minian

June 26th 2003, 08:51 PM

Yesterday @ 10:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132865#post132865)
OldShepherd:

It is NOT a direct comparison but a contrast that is why they use the words "On the problem raised by such attribution" it IS a contrast. There IS a problem, probably due to objections of anti-Trinitarians. Then the sentence continues, “s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;

Here is your complete quote again. Where is the "second instance"?

Again I repeat. “In any event Q. [qeoV] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition."

Dear OldShepherd,
You ask where is the second instance?

BDAG 405-In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b <------ The second instance is b. This is the anarthrous QEOS that is identified with the Word.

(w. hO QEOS 1:a, <------ This is the first one. This is TON QEON and refers to the Father. You do not have the entire 3 page entry on QEOS but section 2 is the section where this is from along with scriptures like John 17:3.

which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition.
[b] On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

I agree that the word had primary characteristics of deity -- lower case 'd'!

To better understand Bauer, get a load of this from the German version.

Bauer's German edition includes the German phrase after Father as in "2. Auch in Beziehung auf Christus verwenden einige Schriften uns. Lit. das Wort Q., jedoch ohne dadurch Christus dem Vater, dem obersten Gott, gleichsetzen zu wollen." A rough translation would be "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ without equating Christ with the Father, the highest (or the uppermost God (dem obersten Gott)) God."

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 09:10 PM

Today @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133613#post133613)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
You ask where is the second instance?

BDAG 405-In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b <------ The second instance is b. This is the anarthrous QEOS that is identified with the Word.

(w. hO QEOS 1:a, <------ This is the first one. This is TON QEON and refers to the Father. You do not have the entire 3 page entry on QEOS but section 2 is the section where this is from along with scriptures like John 17:3.

which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition.
On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

I agree that the word had primary characteristics of deity -- lower case 'd'!

Begging the question, that BGAD means something other than God by the use of a lower case "d". And if that is true why would Jesus having the characteristics of a lesser deity raise problems with "cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6"? And frankly I can't see the relevance of Ps 81:6.

To better understand Bauer, get a load of this from the German version.

Irrelevant. I like Dr. J., am more interested in the more recent scholarship.

Cal_Minian

June 26th 2003, 09:40 PM

Today @ 06:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133632#post133632)
OldShepherd:

[/b]

I agree that the word had primary characteristics of deity -- lower case 'd'!

Begging the question, that BGAD means something other than God by the use of a lower case "d". And if that is true why would Jesus having the characteristics of a lesser deity raise problems with "cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6"? And frankly I can't see the relevance of Ps 81:6.

Irrelevant. I like Dr. J., am more interested in the more recent scholarship. [/QUOTE]

Well then,
What do you have to say about BDAG 2000 saying that Jesus Christ as QEOS is not in the monotheistic sense and giving the example from Diognetus where they say one who is a representative of God is "a god."?

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 11:25 PM

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133654#post133654)
Cal_Minian:

Begging the question, that BGAD means something other than God by the use of a lower case &quot;d&quot;. And if that is true why would Jesus having the characteristics of a lesser deity raise problems with &quot;cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6&quot;? And frankly I can't see the relevance of Ps 81:6.

Irrelevant. I like Dr. J., am more interested in the more recent scholarship.

Well then,
What do you have to say about BDAG 2000 saying that Jesus Christ as QEOS is not in the monotheistic sense and giving the example from Diognetus where they say one who is a representative of God is "a god."?

Is that from another place in BDAG or another misinterpretation of your previous post?

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Cal_Minian

June 26th 2003, 11:37 PM

Today @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133705#post133705)
OldShepherd:

Well then,
What do you have to say about BDAG 2000 saying that Jesus Christ as QEOS is not in the monotheistic sense and giving the example from Diognetus where they say one who is a representative of God is &quot;a god.&quot;?

Is that from another place in BDAG or another misinterpretation of your previous post?

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Dear Carlos,
Same quote. Here it is again.

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father (Bauer's German adds dem obersten Gott or the uppermost God) and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

OldShepherd

June 27th 2003, 04:02 AM

Today @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133714#post133714)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
Same quote. Here it is again.

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father (Bauer's German adds dem obersten Gott or the uppermost God) and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

As I said another misinterpretation of your previous quote.

Well then, What do you have to say about BDAG 2000 saying that Jesus Christ as QEOS is not in the monotheistic sense and giving the example from Diognetus where they say one who is a representative of God is "a god."?

"the example from Diognetus where they say one who is a representative of God is "a god." By this I assume you are referring to this, "proves to be a god to the recipients" I do not have a problem with how ancient non-Christian/non-Jew Greeks perceived their benefactors according to Diognetus, "a well disposed pagan" according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In any event Q. qeoV[/size]] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

One more time, "Q. qeoV[/size]] [i]certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity [Note, you assume by the lower case "d." a lesser deity is meant.], in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. [Note, pause here and consult the list of abbreviations in the front of your BGAD. What does "[i]w." mean? Does it NOT mean "with"? Now continue] hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)[Note, if this reference is NOT joining Jn 1:1a WITH Jn 1:1b, then there will be NO problem with attribution, (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6). Judges, angels, and pagan deities were referred to as "elohim" in the HOT]

OldShepherd

June 27th 2003, 07:46 AM

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133847#post133847)
OldShepherd:

In any event Q. qeoV[/size]] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

One more time, "Q. qeoV[/size]] [i]certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity [Note, you assume by the lower case "d." a lesser deity is meant.], in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. [Note, pause here and consult the list of abbreviations in the front of your BGAD. What does "w." mean? Does it NOT mean "with"? Now continue] hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)[Note, if this reference is NOT joining Jn 1:1a WITH Jn 1:1b, then there will be NO problem with attribution, (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6). Judges, angels, and pagan deities were referred to as "[i]elohim" in the HOT]

Then I went home and dusted off my 1979 edition of BAGD. And I am sorry to say I had made an assumption (I will spare you the military definition which is unsuitable for a family forum) thinking since the BGAD 2000 was being touted so much, there must have been considerable changes. I found the entry for qeoV and started reading. On the second page of the article § 2, about half way down I read, are you ready for this?
On the other hand, q. , certainly refers to Christ in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. o qeoV 1:1a, which refers to God the father,. . .
Whereupon I stopped and said, "[i]Say what?," that is virtually identical to what has been quoted, here, lo, these many times. And I know that "w." in my BAGD means "with" Then the article continues. Hold on 'cause it is really going to get interesting.
. . . on qeoV w. and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos s. Philo, Somn1, 229f: JGGriffiths, ET 62, '50f, 314-16; BMMetzger, ET 63, '51f, 125f) 18b, o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou My Lord and My God! (nom. w. art. = voc.;• • •
Now that last little bit was interesting enough, because some folks have been arguing something supposedly called the "nominative of exclamation," but you ain't seen nuthin yet.
• • •
But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeoV in many pass. qeoV IesouV CristoV 1Tr7:1, C' q'. ISm10:1, o q' umon. IEph inscr.;15:3, 18:2, IRom inscr. (twice) 3:3; IPol8:3, to paqoV q' mou IRom 6:3, en animati q' IEph 1:1, en sarki genomenoV q', 7:2, q' anqropinwV faneroumenoV 19:3. q' o outwV umaV sofisaV ISm1:1.
Now I wonder if current scholarship has revealed that Ignatius, who just happened to be a disciple of John the apostle, did not call Christ qeoV? Or since BDAG has been cited as an authority, if this will be considered authoritative. And you don't even want to know how BAGD '79 treats ego eimi.

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 01:59 PM

Today @ 01:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133847#post133847)
OldShepherd:

As I said another misinterpretation of your previous quote.

"the example from Diognetus where they say one who is a representative of God is "a god." By this I assume you are referring to this, "proves to be a god to the recipients" I do not have a problem with how ancient non-Christian/non-Jew Greeks perceived their benefactors according to Diognetus, "a well disposed pagan" according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

One more time, "Q. qeoV[/size]] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity [Note, you assume by the lower case "d." a lesser deity is meant.], in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. [Note, pause here and consult the list of abbreviations in the front of your BGAD. What does "[i]w." mean? Does it NOT mean "with"? Now continue] hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)[Note, if this reference is NOT joining Jn 1:1a WITH Jn 1:1b, then there will be NO problem with attribution, (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6). Judges, angels, and pagan deities were referred to as "elohim" in the HOT]

Dear OldShepherd,
According to BDAG the abreviation Dg is that of a Christian apologist. They say: "Dg = Letter of Diognetus, attributed to an unidentifiable apologist; II AD"

Therefore the inclusion of the quote is quite relavent to our discusion and cannot be discounted.

Also the w. does mean "with." The second instance of QEOS in John 1:1b which is of the Word is found with the first instance in John 1:1a, but they distinguish them as having different senses. The monotheistic perspective is in section 3 which follows section 2 where QEOS is used of the Christ.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 02:15 PM

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133936#post133936)
OldShepherd:

Then I went home and dusted off my 1979 edition of BAGD. And I am sorry to say I had made an assumption (I will spare you the military definition which is unsuitable for a family forum) thinking since the BGAD 2000 was being touted so much, there must have been considerable changes. I found the entry for qeoV and started reading. On the second page of the article &#167; 2, about half way down I read, are you ready for this?
On the other hand, q. , certainly refers to Christ in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. o qeoV 1:1a, which refers to God the father,. . .
Whereupon I stopped and said, "[i]Say what?," that is virtually identical to what has been quoted, here, lo, these many times. And I know that "w." in my BAGD means "with" Then the article continues. Hold on 'cause it is really going to get interesting.
. . . on qeoV w. and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos s. Philo, Somn1, 229f: JGGriffiths, ET 62, '50f, 314-16; BMMetzger, ET 63, '51f, 125f) 18b, o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou My Lord and My God! (nom. w. art. = voc.;&#149; &#149; &#149;
Now that last little bit was interesting enough, because some folks have been arguing something supposedly called the "nominative of exclamation," but you ain't seen nuthin yet.
&#149; &#149; &#149;
But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeoV in many pass. qeoV IesouV CristoV 1Tr7:1, C' q'. ISm10:1, o q' umon. IEph inscr.;15:3, 18:2, IRom inscr. (twice) 3:3; IPol8:3, to paqoV q' mou IRom 6:3, en animati q' IEph 1:1, en sarki genomenoV q', 7:2, q' anqropinwV faneroumenoV 19:3. q' o outwV umaV sofisaV ISm1:1.
Now I wonder if current scholarship has revealed that Ignatius, who just happened to be a disciple of John the apostle, did not call Christ qeoV? Or since BDAG has been cited as an authority, if this will be considered authoritative. And you don't even want to know how BAGD '79 treats ego eimi.

Dear OldShepherd,
Yes I do believe that there are writings attributed to Ignatius that call Christ QEOS.

The significant difference between BDAG and BADG is that they add the quote from the Christian apologist Dg. where one is "a god" because of being a savior to illustrate how in Mosaic Gr-Rom. times Jesus would have been considered QEOS.

In addition they further define QEOS of the Father as being in the monotheistic context while adding the gloss in 3 of "God in the Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective" to show that is where QEOS from John 1:1a (the Father) belongs.

Then to further explain and distinguish QEOS of the Word from the Father they have added the references to Exodus 7:1 and John 10:34 to explain how QEOS of the Word and QEOS of the Father differs.

The changes are quite significant and provocative for any Trinitarian. BTW BDAG was put out by Missouri Synod.

You know I am a JW. Who do you fellowship with?

And yes, I will discuss EGW EIMI from BDAG if you like.
The url is http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6450

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 05:22 PM

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134256#post134256)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
Yes I do believe that there are writings attributed to Ignatius that call Christ QEOS.

The significant difference between BDAG and BADG is that they add the quote from the Christian apologist Dg. where one is "a god" because of being a savior to illustrate how in Mosaic Gr-Rom. times Jesus would have been considered QEOS.

In addition they further define QEOS of the Father as being in the monotheistic context while adding the gloss in 3 of "God in the Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective" to show that is where QEOS from John 1:1a (the Father) belongs.

Then to further explain and distinguish QEOS of the Word from the Father they have added the references to Exodus 7:1 and John 10:34 to explain how QEOS of the Word and QEOS of the Father differs.

The changes are quite significant and provocative for any Trinitarian. BTW BDAG was put out by Missouri Synod.

You know I am a JW. Who do you fellowship with?

And yes, I will discuss EGW EIMI from BDAG if you like.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Dear OldShepherd,
I started a thread for BDAG on EGW EIMI because I could not find your quote.

It is at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6450

You'll love it!

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 27th 2003, 08:26 PM

Today @ 04:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134256#post134256)
Cal_Minian:

In addition they further define QEOS of the Father as being in the monotheistic context while adding the gloss in 3 of "God in the Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective" to show that is where QEOS from John 1:1a (the Father) belongs.

Then to further explain and distinguish QEOS of the Word from the Father they have added the references to Exodus 7:1 and John 10:34 to explain how QEOS of the Word and QEOS of the Father differs.

Well I see talking to you is a total waste of time. You repeatedly keep twisting the words of BGAD desperately, frantically trying to make them fit your presuppositions. I proved from the older edition that your assumption was wrong.

Please explain what the word "with" means? And further if qeoV in John 1:1a and 1:1b are used in different ways, how would that result in a "problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)" If they are used in different ways there is NO problem. I have asked you at least three times and you have dodged the question each time. I do not need to hear the same thing over and over again.

You know I am a JW. Who do you fellowship with?

Irrelevant, but see my profile.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 08:45 PM

Today @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134669#post134669)
OldShepherd:

Well I see talking to you is a total waste of time. You repeatedly keep twisting the words of BGAD desperately, frantically trying to make them fit your presuppositions. I proved from the older edition that your assumption was wrong.

Please explain what the word "with" means? And further if qeoV in John 1:1a and 1:1b are used in different ways, how would that result in a "problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)" If they are used in different ways there is NO problem. I have asked you at least three times and you have dodged the question each time. I do not need to hear the same thing over and over again.

Irrelevant, but see my profile.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Dear Carlos,
The reason why this might cause a probem is because of the very first statement in the section of QEOS for Christ. It is because QEOS is used of Christ "without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4;"

The significance of that is that they consider the God in Det 6:4 to be QEOS of the Father in the monotheistic sense.

When the speak about QEOS as the Father in John 1:1a the sense is that of the monotheistic sense but with respect to the Word at 1b it is not. That is what they clearly say in this section.

The monotheistic sense is DIFFERENT than that of one who is a representative of God like Moses at Exodus 7:1.

Regards,
Cal

Pilgrim

June 28th 2003, 06:50 AM

HeI have a question for the JW's, do you all realize that there is no such word as "jehova" in reality? That that english word is based on a mis translation/interpretation of the the tetragramiton?

OldShepherd

June 28th 2003, 09:45 AM

Today @ 10:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134683#post134683)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
The reason why this might cause a probem is because of the very first statement in the section of QEOS for Christ. It is because QEOS is used of Christ "without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4;"

The significance of that is that they consider the God in Det 6:4 to be QEOS of the Father in the monotheistic sense.

When the speak about QEOS as the Father in John 1:1a the sense is that of the monotheistic sense but with respect to the Word at 1b it is not. That is what they clearly say in this section.

The monotheistic sense is DIFFERENT than that of one who is a representative of God like Moses at Exodus 7:1.

Regards,
Cal

I have pointed out your errors several times and you simply will not see it. This is the most blatant case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. You just simply refuse to read what is actually written and keep insisting that black is white.
BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;

Note you said, "It is because QEOS is used of Christ "without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4;[/b]"

What the article actually says, "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below)," Can you see the difference? You imply the article says ALL, when it in fact only says "Some"

As for the quote from Mathetes epistle to Diognetus. Let's see what it actually says. And let us remember this is only ONE (1) source and an unknown source at that. Does Mathetes, the unknown writer, actually speak for all Christians of his era? Should we not also consult the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp who were disciples of John, the apostles?
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus Chapter VII.-The Manifestation of Christ.

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens-by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds-whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe-from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed -whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject-the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein-fire, air, and the abyss-the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?38 ... Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, that they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation.

And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-08.htm#P636_112351[/b]

And the final section which you keep twisting desperately, frantically twisting it to try to make it fit your presuppositions.In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. [Note, Jn 1:1b is connected to 1:1a, and its description, by the word "with"] hO QEOS 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;
If this clause is stating that "theos" is used differently in Jn 1:1a and 1:1b, then how can there be a problem raised by "such attribution" Your twisting of this clause contradicts your insistence that Mathetes said, "one who ministers to the needy. . . proves to be a god [i.e. theos]". If, "theos," in Jn 1;1b is used the same way you claim Mathetes used it then there cannot be any problem of attribution.

Cal_Minian

June 28th 2003, 11:00 AM

Today @ 06:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134913#post134913)
OldShepherd:

If this clause is stating that "theos" is used differently in Jn 1:1a and 1:1b, then how can there be a problem raised by "such attribution" Your twisting of this clause contradicts your insistence that Mathetes said, "one who ministers to the needy. . . proves to be a god [i.e. theos]". If, "theos," in Jn 1;1b is used the same way you claim Mathetes used it then there cannot be any problem of attribution.

Dear Carlos,
The reason why this might cause a probem is because of the very first statement in the section of QEOS for Christ. It is because QEOS is used of Christ "without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4;"

The significance of that is that they consider the God in Det 6:4 to be QEOS of the Father in the monotheistic sense.

When the speak about QEOS as the Father in John 1:1a the sense is that of the monotheistic sense but with respect to the Word at 1b it is not. That is what they clearly say in this section.

The monotheistic sense is DIFFERENT than that of one who is a representative of God like Moses at Exodus 7:1.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 28th 2003, 11:13 AM

Today @ 03:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134880#post134880)
Pilgrim:

HeI have a question for the JW's, do you all realize that there is no such word as "jehova" in reality? That that english word is based on a mis translation/interpretation of the the tetragramiton?

Dear Pilgrim,
On time I asked some people in Israel on a chat channel how they would pronounce the name. They were not orthodox so they were not offended. They said Ya-ho-wah in three sylables. How do you think it should be pronounced?

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 29th 2003, 05:06 AM

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134928#post134928)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
The reason why this might cause a probem is because of the very first statement in the section of QEOS for Christ. It is because QEOS is used of Christ "without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4;"

The significance of that is that they consider the God in Det 6:4 to be QEOS of the Father in the monotheistic sense.

When the speak about QEOS as the Father in John 1:1a the sense is that of the monotheistic sense but with respect to the Word at 1b it is not. That is what they clearly say in this section.

The monotheistic sense is DIFFERENT than that of one who is a representative of God like Moses at Exodus 7:1.

Regards,
Cal

You are NOT answering me. You have totally ignored my post and are mindlessly parroting the same thing for about the 3rd or 4th time. Are you legally blind? Can you see my post above? Why have you ignored what I posted? Why have you refused time and time again to address all the points I listed? Do you know what the word SOME means? What you have posted is a blatant LIE! It takes one sentence twists it around out of context and ignores the rest of your own quote! And it also ignores the rest of the article on "theos" which I posted before.

Cal_Minian

June 29th 2003, 01:20 PM

Today @ 02:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135292#post135292)
OldShepherd:

You are NOT answering me. You have totally ignored my post and are mindlessly parroting the same thing for about the 3rd or 4th time. Are you legally blind? Can you see my post above? Why have you ignored what I posted? Why have you refused time and time again to address all the points I listed? Do you know what the word SOME means? What you have posted is a blatant LIE! It takes one sentence twists it around out of context and ignores the rest of your own quote! And it also ignores the rest of the article on "theos" which I posted before.

Dear OldShepherd,
I am not trying to ignore your posts. If I do not address them to your satisfaction it is because I do not understand your point. Be patient with me.

For example, you quoted the letter to Diognetus which does translate the one who imitates God as "a god." I do not understand why you think this disqualifies it as a valid entry for BDAG to use in the section which they have set aside to exclusively discuss how Christ is QEOS on page 450, section 2. Did Christ not imitate his Father by representing him. He said he only spoke the words his Father gave him and to see him was tosee the Father!

In addition in section 3 which is "God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective" they also list John 1:2 which is QEOS of the Father in pros ton qeon . This is also where they put QEOS in John 1:1a which is also pros ton qeon

This is becuase to attribute QEOS to the Father as "God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective" is "in harmony with the Shema of Israel" but to attribute QEOS of Jesus in John 1:1b would not be in harmony with the Shema of Israel .

I am sorry, OldShepherd, if this upsets you but this is cleary what BDAG says. I am quoting them word for word.

I am not sure how else to explain this to you. Perhaps if you purchased BDAG for yourself and read it on the printed page you would see it more clearly.

They have made many improvement to BDAG for old codgers like us who need bifocals (like I do) because the Scriptures are set in a wonderful dark font so they stand out along with the glosses. It is well worth the money.

Kind Regards,
Cal

AVmetro

June 29th 2003, 08:46 PM

It came to my attention that this topic has been discussed elsewhere. I imagine it's quite popular amongst several JWs (?).

The initial post can be viewed here (http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=116&topic_id=7284&mesg_id=7284&page=29) at CARM as posted by "frouse".

Look especially for replies by Sola Gratia and HR1234. This is, however, strictly for those interested in reading a past correspondence on the topic.

God bless

AVmetro

June 29th 2003, 08:50 PM

Cal_Minion stated:

I am not sure how else to explain this to you. Perhaps if you purchased BDAG for yourself and read it on the printed page you would see it more clearly.

I would love to own a copy. Though I would rather wait and dish out the cash for Bibleworks5 with the BDAG add-on. Either way it costs a pretty penny. :bomb:

OldShepherd

June 30th 2003, 08:17 AM

Here is the infamous BDAG quote again.

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6) ;

OS: Question/Point # 1. Never addressed or answered.
”Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below)” Every time you have given us your “exegesis” of this sentence you write, “[O]ur lit. use[s] the word Q. w. ref. to Christ. . .,” e.g. Here! (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134928#post134928), which implies “all" our literature. That is dishonest, and deceptive. [Edited to delete: "I am sure that Danker was familiar with the word “all" and had he intended to write "all" he would have done so." And to add: But above all. . . "] But Danker did NOT say "all," here, he said “Some!” By the deliberate use of the word “some” Danker indicates that while some of our literature does not do so, “some ” of our literature does use the word qeoV with reference to Christ (while equating Christ with the Father.)

Not only does this sentence imply that our literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ AND equating Christ with the father, but later in the article Danker cites passages which in fact do this, namely Titus 2:13 and Hebrew 1:8,9 and this reference to the writings of Ignatius, who was a disciple of John. Note, before you try to blow this off, it is quoted from the same BAGD, qeoV article. If Ignatius, who is known to have been a disciple of John, is not reliable, then an unknown disciple, Mathetes, is certainly NOT reliable.

But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeoV in many pass. qeoV IesouV CristoV 1Tr7:1, C' q'. ISm10:1, o q' umon. IEph inscr.;15:3, 18:2, IRom inscr. (twice) 3:3; IPol8:3, to paqoV q' mou IRom 6:3, en animati q' IEph 1:1, en sarki genomenoV q', 7:2, q' anqropinwV faneroumenoV 19:3. q' o outwV umaV sofisaV ISm1:1.

Conclusion

Contrary to your repeated misquote of Danker. BDAG does, in fact, say that some Christian literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ AND equates Christ with the father.
OS: Question/Point # 2. Never addressed or answered.
” Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: “one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients. . .”

For example, you quoted the letter to Diognetus which does translate the one who imitates God as "a god." I do not understand why you think this disqualifies it as a valid entry for BDAG to use in the section which they have set aside to exclusively discuss how Christ is QEOS on page 450, section 2. Did Christ not imitate his Father by representing him. He said he only spoke the words his Father gave him and to see him was to see the Father!

Because the quote in BDAG is out of context and does not say what your are trying to make it say. As I said before which you basically ignored, Mathetes was an unknown disciple who wrote one letter to a pagan named Diognetus. And while this sentence fragment might seem to support your argument, in a general way, Mathetes himself did NOT apply qeoV to Jesus in that way. See quote, below.

Mathetes epistle to Diognetus.

. . .to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens-by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds-. . . As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...htm#P636_112351

Conclusion

Despite Danker’s quote which you have repeatedly misapplied and quoted out-of-context, Mathetes did NOT consider Jesus “one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients” But for Mathetes Jesus was the very Creator and Fashioner of all things and God! Period, end of story!
OS: Question/Point # 3. Never addressed or answered.
”In any event Q. [qeoV ] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)”

Danker very clearly states that “such attribution” raises a problem. What is the attribution which raises a problem?

Is there a problem because ton qeon in Jn 1:1a “refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition?” What is wrong with John saying, “In the beginning ton qeon. . .?

Note, “in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a,” This is not contrasting or distinguishing Jn 1:1b from 1:1a, but connecting them. That is what the word “with” means.

”On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)” Once again what is the problem? What attribution raises a problem? Is there a problem because qeoV in Jn 1:1b does NOT refer to Jesus as God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition, as you claim?

How would Jesus NOT being referred to as qeoV “in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition,” raise a problem of attribution with Ex 7:1 and Ps 81:6? Particularly since you are arguing that qeoV applied to Jesus, in Jn 1:1b, only means Jesus is “one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God [and] proves to be a god to the recipients” How is that a problem of attribution?

Conclusion

qeoV in J 1:1b [I]with ton qeon in Jn 1:1a, both refer to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. And that attribution raises a problem with Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6, particularly with Jews and anti-Trinitarians.

For Jesus to be referred to as qeoV, i.e., God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition, does NOT raise a problem of attribution with Trinitarians.

Note, I use bold face to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain word.

AVmetro

June 30th 2003, 11:56 PM

Nice post, Shep.

OldShepherd

July 1st 2003, 02:54 AM

Today @ 01:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136418#post136418)
IronMetro:

Nice post, Shep.

TY, it's almost time to break out the good stuff hidden away on the bottom shelf.

OldShepherd

July 1st 2003, 08:07 PM

As has been pointed out several times before when the scribes and Pharisees picked up rocks and attempted to stone Jesus, inside the temple, they were violating several of their own laws. In fact, as can be seen from the source below, their own offense was so serious that they would be guilty of murder themselves, "if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator."

The Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) shows that the attempt to stone Jesus in Jn 8:58, violated at least fifteen (15) provisions of Jewish law. The JE lists only eighteen (18) offenses, under Jewish law, which merited death by stoning. Which one of these offenses did the scribes and Pharisees believe Jesus to have violated?

Note also that Rome had long before taken away the Jews right to administer capital punishment, therefore the actions of the scribes and Pharisees not only violated Jewish law, it also violated the secular Roman law.
Jewish Encyclopedia - Capital Punishment.

According to these conclusions, rabbinic law based on Pentateuchal authority, expressed or inferred, affixes death by stoning to each of the following eighteen crimes: 1. Bestiality committed by man (Lev. xx. 15; Sanh. vii. 4, 54b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, x. 1; Mek., Mishpaṭim, 17). 2. Bestiality com mitted by woman (Lev. xx. 16: Sanh. vii. 4, 54b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, x. 3; Mek., Mishpaṭim, 17). 3. Blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 16; Sanh. vii. 4, 43a; Sifra, Emor, xix.). 4. Criminal conversation with a betrothed virgin (Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. vii. 4, 66b; Sifre, Deut. 242). 5. Criminal conversation with one's own daughter-in-law (Lev. xx. 12; Sanh. vii. 4, 53a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, ix. 13). 6. Criminal conversation with one's own mother (Lev. xviii. 7, xx. 11; Sanh. vii. 4, 53a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, ix. 12). 7. Criminal conversation with one's own stepmother (Lev. xviii. 8, xx. 11; Sanh. vii. 4, 53a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, ix. 12). 8. Cursing a parent (Lev. xx. 9; Sanh. vii. 4, 66a; Mek., Mishpaṭim, 17; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, ix. 7). 9. Enticing individuals to idolatry: "Mesit" (Deut. xiii. 7-12 [A. V. 6-11]; Sanh. vii. 4, 67a; Sifre, Deut. 90). 10. Idolatry (Deut. xvii. 2-7; Sanh. vii. 4, 60b; Sifre, Deut. 149). 11. Instigating communities to idolatry: "Maddiaḥ" (Deut. xiii. 2-6 [A. V. 1-5]; Sanh. vii. 4, 67a; Sifre, Deut. 86). 12. Necromancy (Lev. xx. 27; Sanh. vii. 4, 65a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, xi., end). 13. Offering one's own children to Molech (Lev. xx. 2; Sanh. vii. 4, 64a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, viii., parashah 10, beginning). 14. Pederasty (Lev. xx. 13; Sanh. vii. 4, 54a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, ix. 14). 15. Pythonism (Lev. xx. 27; Sanh. vii. 4, 65a; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, xi., end). 16. Rebelling against parents (Deut. xxi. 18-21; Sanh. vii. 4, 68b; Sifre, Deut. 220). 17. Sabbath-breaking (Num. xv. 32-36; Sanh. vii. 4; Sifre, Num. 114). 18. Witchcraft (Ex. xxii. 17 [A. V. 18]; Sanh. vii. 4, 67a; Mek., Mishpaṭim, 17).

Mode of Judgment.

[1] Capital punishment in rabbinic law, or indeed any other punishment, must not be inflicted, except by the verdict of a regularly constituted court (Lesser Sanh.) of three-and-twenty qualified members (Sanh. i. 1; Sifre, Num. 160), and except on the most [2] trustworthy and convincing testimony of at least two qualified eye-witnesses to the crime (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15; Soṭah vi. 3; Sifre, Num. 161; ib. Deut. 150, 188; Sanh. 30a) who [3] must also depose that the culprit had been forewarned as to the criminality and the consequences of his project (Sanh. v. 1, 40b et seq.; see Hatraah). The culprit must be a person of legal age and of sound mind, and the crime [4] must be proved to have been committed of the culprit's free will and without the aid of others (see Abetment); and [5] if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator (Tosef., B. Ḳ. ix. 15; Sifre, Num. 161; compare 'Ar. i. 3, 6b). Nor may an execution be deferred, except in the case of the "Zaḳen mamre" (Sanh. xi. 4), or of a woman about to be delivered of a child ('Ar. i. 4), nor may it be carried out on a day sacred to religion (Mek., Mishpaṭim, 4; ib. Wayyaḳhel; Yeb. 6b; Sanh. 35b). [6] On the day that the verdict is pronounced, the convict is led forth to execution (Sanh. 34a). Looking upon the sinner as upon the victim of folly (Soṭah 3a), and considering death an expiation for misdeeds (Ber. 60a; Sanh. vi. 2; see Atonement), the Rabbis would not permit the protraction of the interval between sentence and execution, which they considered as the most terrible period in the convict's existence. These considerations prompted them to afford the convict every possible alleviation of the pains and sufferings concomitant with the execution, and to direct the execution itself so as to prevent the mutilation of the body, or to reduce such mutilation, where it is unavoidable—as in stoning or slaying—to a minimum. The Pentateuchal law (Lev. xix. 18) prescribes, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy-self"; and the Rabbis maintain that this love must be extended beyond the limits of social intercourse in life, and applied even to the convicted criminal who, "though a sinner, is still thy brother" (Mak. iii. 15; Sanh. 44a): "The spirit of love must be manifested by according him a decent death" (Sanh. 45a, 52a).

Execution of Sentence.

As [7] the convict is led forth to the place of execution, which is located outside of the city limits and at some distance from the court-house (Sanh. vi. 1, 42b), a flag-bearer is stationed at the entrance to the court, and farther on a rider is placed, while a herald marches in front of the procession, proclaiming the name of the convict, his crime, when and where committed, and the names of the witnesses on whose evidence he was convicted, at the same time [8] inviting any and every one in possession of evidence favorable to the convict to come forward and declare it—[9] the judges remaining in session throughout the process of the execution and fasting all that day (M. Ḳ. 14b; Sanh. 63a). If favorable evidence comes to light, the flag-bearer gives the signal, and the rider turns the procession back to the court where the new evidence is duly considered. Indeed, the convict's own declaration that he can prove his innocence, or mitigating circumstances, cause a stay until he is heard. And even where he fails to effect a reversal of sentence by his first attempt, there is still hope left for him. He may repeat the attempt several times, [10] two scholars accompanying him for the purpose of hearing him and judging whether further delay should be permitted. On arriving in the neighborhood of the scaffold, [11] he is exhorted to make confession of his sins, though not specifically of the crime for which he is to suffer death (see Confession of Sin). Thereupon [12] he is given to drink a mixture of wine and olibanum, that he may become stupefied and not realize the painful close of his earthly career (Sem. ii. 9; Sanh. 43a; compare Mark xv. 23; contrast Matt. xxvii. 34). When he is brought still nearer to the fatal place, [13] he is divested of his clothes and covered in front, and, if a woman, in front and behind (according to the adopted opinion, a woman was not divested at all). In this state the convict was led on to the spot (Sanh. vi. 1-3, 42b-45b; Tosef., Sanh. ix. 6; Sifra, Emor, xix. 3; Sifre, Deut. 221). Then the prosecuting witnesses, who are the only legal executioners known to Biblical and rabbinic laws (Deut. xvii. 7; Sifra, Emor, xix. 3; Sifre, Deut. 89, 151; Sanh. 45b), proceed to carry out the sentence which their evidence has brought about. That is done in the following manner:

Stoning: With reference to two offenders subject to this penalty, the Pentateuch says, "Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people" (Deut. xiii. 10 [A. V. 9]), and again (ib. xvii. 7), "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people." Rabbinic law follows this injunction literally, but confines its consummation within narrow limits. [14] The convict having been placed on a platform twice his height, [15] one of the witnesses throws him to the ground. If the concussion does not produce instant death, the second witness hurls a heavy stone at his chest; and only when this also proves insufficient to end his misery, the bystanders throw stones at the prostrate body until death ensues (Sanh. vi. 4; 45a et seq.; Sifra, Emor, xix.; Sifre, Num. 114; ib. Deut. 89, 90, 149, 151).

Critical Note.

Rabbinic jurisprudence is developed on the basis of the letter and the spirit of the Bible, particularly of the Pentateuchal codes (Josh. i. 8, viii. 31; Josephus, "Contra Ap." i. 8; Ḥag. 10b, 14a; Ned. 22b; Mak. 23b; compare Darmesteter, "The Talmud," translation by H. Szold, pp. 62 et seq.); but that development naturally partook of the spirit of the ages during which it took place—from Ezra's times to the final redaction of the Gemara (559 B.C. to 550 C.E.). This was especially the case with the development of the civil and ritualistic laws, which governed Jewish life long after the Roman conquest of Palestine. But also in criminal law, involving capital punishment, the right to administer which had been taken from the Sanhedrin decades before the fall of Jerusalem (Sanh. 41a; Yer. Sanh. i. 18a,vii. 24b),

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=128&letter=C

Cal_Minian

July 4th 2003, 05:00 PM

06-30-2003 @ 05:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135842#post135842)
OldShepherd:

Here is the infamous BDAG quote again.

OS: Question/Point # 1. Never addressed or answered.
”Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below)” Every time you have given us your “exegesis” of this sentence you write, “[O]ur lit. use[s] the word Q. w. ref. to Christ. . .,” e.g. Here! (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134928#post134928), which implies “all" our literature. That is dishonest, and deceptive. [Edited to delete: "I am sure that Danker was familiar with the word “all" and had he intended to write "all" he would have done so." And to add: But above all. . . "] But Danker did NOT say "all," here, he said “Some!” By the deliberate use of the word “some” Danker indicates that while some of our literature does not do so, “some ” of our literature does use the word qeoV with reference to Christ (while equating Christ with the Father.)

Not only does this sentence imply that our literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ AND equating Christ with the father, but later in the article Danker cites passages which in fact do this, namely Titus 2:13 and Hebrew 1:8,9 and this reference to the writings of Ignatius, who was a disciple of John. Note, before you try to blow this off, it is quoted from the same BAGD, qeoV article. If Ignatius, who is known to have been a disciple of John, is not reliable, then an unknown disciple, Mathetes, is certainly NOT reliable.

Conclusion

Contrary to your repeated misquote of Danker. BDAG does, in fact, say that some Christian literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ AND equates Christ with the father.
OS: Question/Point # 2. Never addressed or answered.
” Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: “one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients. . .”

Because the quote in BDAG is out of context and does not say what your are trying to make it say. As I said before which you basically ignored, Mathetes was an unknown disciple who wrote one letter to a pagan named Diognetus. And while this sentence fragment might seem to support your argument, in a general way, Mathetes himself did NOT apply qeoV to Jesus in that way. See quote, below.

Conclusion

Despite Danker’s quote which you have repeatedly misapplied and quoted out-of-context, Mathetes did NOT consider Jesus “one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients” But for Mathetes Jesus was the very Creator and Fashioner of all things and God! Period, end of story!
OS: Question/Point # 3. Never addressed or answered.
”In any event Q. [qeoV ] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)”

Danker very clearly states that “such attribution” raises a problem. What is the attribution which raises a problem?

Is there a problem because ton qeon in Jn 1:1a “refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition?” What is wrong with John saying, “In the beginning ton qeon. . .?

Note, “in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a,” This is not contrasting or distinguishing Jn 1:1b from 1:1a, but connecting them. That is what the word “with” means.

”On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)” Once again what is the problem? What attribution raises a problem? Is there a problem because qeoV in Jn 1:1b does NOT refer to Jesus as God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition, as you claim?

How would Jesus NOT being referred to as qeoV “in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition,” raise a problem of attribution with Ex 7:1 and Ps 81:6? Particularly since you are arguing that qeoV applied to Jesus, in Jn 1:1b, only means Jesus is “one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God [and] proves to be a god to the recipients” How is that a problem of attribution?

Conclusion

qeoV in J 1:1b [I]with ton qeon in Jn 1:1a, both refer to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. And that attribution raises a problem with Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6, particularly with Jews and anti-Trinitarians.

For Jesus to be referred to as qeoV, i.e., God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition, does NOT raise a problem of attribution with Trinitarians.

Note, I use bold face to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain word.

Dear OldShepherd,
I interpret the problem to which BDAG refers of equating Christ with the Father in the Shema as a reference to the modalist teaching that the Son and Father are the same person.

You seem to indicate that you view equating of Christ with the Father to be consistent with a Trinitarian interpretation of verses like Titus 2:13.

To me the word "equating" is related to "equation" whereby Christ would BE the Father as opposed to Christ being "equal" with the Father.

The fact that we view this differently may be the reason why we interpret the later statements which are built on this fundamental definition of BDAG differently.

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

July 4th 2003, 11:03 PM

Cal_Minian

July 4th 2003, 11:18 PM

Today @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139780#post139780)
OldShepherd:

The word "equate" in any of its forms is not in the reference cited. You haven't answered doodly squat. Just danced around with a lot of irrelevant smoke and mirrors.

Dear OldShepherd,
The quote starts with "BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father ...

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

July 4th 2003, 11:21 PM

OldShepherd

July 4th 2003, 11:24 PM

Today @ 01:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139789#post139789)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
The quote starts with "BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father ...

Regards,
Cal

Oh yes, my apologies. Now can you tell me what are the two words immediately in front of "equating" and what impact they have on this sentence? Or the first word in the sentence, "Some?"

OldShepherd

July 5th 2003, 04:15 AM

Today @ 07:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139614#post139614)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I interpret the problem to which BDAG refers of equating Christ with the Father in the Shema as a reference to the modalist teaching that the Son and Father are the same person.

You seem to indicate that you view equating of Christ with the Father to be consistent with a Trinitarian interpretation of verses like Titus 2:13.

To me the word "equating" is related to "equation" whereby Christ would BE the Father as opposed to Christ being "equal" with the Father.

The fact that we view this differently may be the reason why we interpret the later statements which are built on this fundamental definition of BDAG differently.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Well I think I now understand the problem. You do not understand plain English. Everything you read is filtered through a WBTS filter and twisted to conform to their presuppositions. Even a simple word like "equate." Here is the dictionary definition.
1 a : to make equal : EQUALIZE b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2 : to treat, represent, or regard as equal , equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive senses : to correspond as equal
I assume that since Danker has a PhD he is knowledgeable of the English language and uses words according to their common meaning, unless he states otherwise.

You have had over four days and, with the exception of this meaningless mumbo-jumbo, you cannot come up with a reasoned, studied, response to my three points.

I have proven beyond any doubt that the quote from BDAG does NOT in any way support your twisted argument.

Cal_Minian

July 5th 2003, 11:18 AM

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139901#post139901)
OldShepherd:

Well I think I now understand the problem. You do not understand plain English. Everything you read is filtered through a WBTS filter and twisted to conform to their presuppositions. Even a simple word like "equate." Here is the dictionary definition.
1 a : to make equal : EQUALIZE b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2 : to treat, represent, or regard as equal , equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive senses : to correspond as equal
I assume that since Danker has a PhD he is knowledgeable of the English language and uses words according to their common meaning, unless he states otherwise.

You have had over four days and, with the exception of this meaningless mumbo-jumbo, you cannot come up with a reasoned, studied, response to my three points.

I have proven beyond any doubt that the quote from BDAG does NOT in any way support your twisted argument.

Dear OldShepherd,
I take "equating" or "equivalent" to mean equivalent in function and even identity. However, I will take your defintion for now, because it hurts your position deeply.

You see, with your definition, according to BDAG, the Trinitarian definition of the equality between Christ and the Father (as opposed to the oneness "equivalency") means that BDAG considers the Trinity to violate the Shema of Israel.

I would agree that the Trinity violates the Shema of Israel, but I don't think you do.

Kind Regards,
Cal

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)

OldShepherd

July 6th 2003, 08:09 PM

Today @ 01:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140031#post140031)
Cal_Minian:
Dear OldShepherd,
I take "equating" or "equivalent" to mean equivalent in function and even identity. However, I will take your definition for now, because it hurts your position deeply.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this. Are you serious? How could the word "equal" possibly hurt my case? That is the exact word used in Philip 2:6 and has the meaning which I posted. And this meaning is supported overwhelmingly by the church fathers. But of course they are secular and not worth considering, that is unless they seem to support the WBTS teachings, such as the one out-of-context reference to Dg. (Diognetus) in BDAG.

You see, with your definition, according to BDAG, the Trinitarian definition of the equality between Christ and the Father (as opposed to the oneness "equivalency") means that BDAG considers the Trinity to violate the Shema of Israel.

I would agree that the Trinity violates the Shema of Israel, but I don't think you do.

No, Danker does NOT say that the Trinitarian definition violates anything. Neither word definition, not Trinitarian appears in that quote. What Danker's statement implies is that "some" Christian literature uses the word qeoV with reference to Christ, equating Christ with the Father and therefore NOT in harmony with the Shema of Israel. Not according to Danker, but according to, "the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition."

And of course that is a given, mainline Judaism vehemently rejects the Trinity. But that is not a big selling point, they also reject Jesus as Messiah, and even refer to Him as a "Mamzer", i.e. a bastard and His mother Mary as a prostitute. The same Jews also say that the best of the gentiles deserves to die and that the issue of, i.e. child born to, a gentile is as that of a beast and an ass. Here is the JE link, click on J or G in the Browse bar at the top, then scroll until you find Jesus or Gentile.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp

You are correct I do not think that the Trinity as defined by mainline Christianity, violates anything, including the Shema. But note I emphasize the mainline Christian definition, not as defined by Judaism and other anti-Trinitarian groups

Here is the link to my post with three points/questions, which you still have not directly addressed or answered. I will not bother reposting either my points or the BDAG quote, you evidently are not reading either one.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=135842#post135842

Here is a summary of my points. Answer, don't answer, it is immaterial. Further tap dancing and skirting my posts only serves to prove your inability to make a reasoned response.
You have never acknowledged that Danker used the word "Some" in the first sentence of your BDAG quote.

You have ignored my posts and responded each time as if Danker used the word or implied "all" Christian literature.

You have failed to acknowledge that Danker very clearly implies that "some" Christian literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ equating Christ with the Father.

You have never addressed how the word "Some' affects the meaning of the sentence.

You have used the reference to Diognetus, in the third sentence, out-of-context.

You have failed to acknowledge that the writing cited, i.e. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus" does NOT support but very emphatically contradicts your misuse of the citation.

You have failed to acknowledge that the same BDAG article clearly lists scripture and ECF writings which use qeoV with reference to Christ equating Christ with the Father, thereby contradicting your interpretation of this citation.

You have failed to acknowledge that the penultimate sentence in the citation very clearly associates qeoV in John 1:1b and 1;1a, together using the word "with."

You have failed to acknowledge that the "problem of attribution' in the last sentence refers to the association of qeoV in John 1:1b and 1;1a, in the immediately preceding sentence, not a statement several sentences previous, at the beginning of the paragraph.

You have failed to recognize that your insistence that Danker means "all" Christian literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel, contradicts the last sentence. "On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)"

You have failed to recognize that Danker acknowledges the problem is raised, NOT might be, possibly, would be, etc. Only if Christian literature uses qeoV with reference to Christ, equating Christ with the Father, is there a problem of attribution.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

AVmetro

July 7th 2003, 01:01 AM

I would agree that the Trinity violates the Shema of Israel, but I don't think you do.

Why? Do we not consider ourselves to be monotheists?

Cal_Minian

July 7th 2003, 11:17 AM

Yesterday @ 10:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141737#post141737)
IronMetro:

Why? Do we not consider ourselves to be monotheists?

Dear IronMetro,
I am a MonoPersonalTheist and you are a PolyPersonalTheist.

When Jesus repeated the Shema in Mark 12:29 he did so by refering to that one God as his God and to that God in the third person thus excluding himself from being the God of the Shema.

Jesus' inclusion of the Shema makes this Creed not merely a Jewish Creed, but now the central doctrine for the expression of God for Christian monotheism as well.

The scribe to whom he spoke was a Jew, and Jews today just as they did then believed God to be one person.

When the scribe replied, once again speaking about God in the third person singular with "He is one" Jesus answered in the affirmative to this man's understanding of the oneness of God by saying he was not far off from the kingdom of God.

Therefore, Jesus was also a MonoPersonalTheist.

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

July 7th 2003, 09:33 PM

Today @ 01:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141950#post141950)
Cal_Minian:

The scribe to whom he spoke was a Jew, and Jews today just as they did then believed God to be one person.

Ah but this is eisegesis, reading into the text. There is nothing said about "person" in the Shema. And there are a great number of Messianic Jews who do, in fact, affirm the Shema and recognize that God is one being, but has revealed Himself in history as three persons. And these Jews support their beliefs from the Hebrew scriptures.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Socrates

July 7th 2003, 10:33 PM

Today @ 12:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142688#post142688)
OldShepherd, replying to:

Cal_Minian:

The scribe to whom he spoke was a Jew, and Jews today just as they did then believed God to be one person.

Ah but this is eisegesis, reading into the text. There is nothing said about "person" in the Shema. And there are a great number of Messianic Jews who do, in fact, affirm the Shema and recognize that God is one being, but has revealed Himself in history as three persons. And these Jews support their beliefs from the Hebrew scriptures.

Very true. N.T. Wright in The New Testament and the People of God affirms (p. 247):

In this context it is vital for our purposes that we stress one fact. Within the most fiercely monotheistic Jewish circles throughout our period—from the Maccbaean revolt to Bar Kochba—there is no suggestion that ‘monotheism’, or praying the Shema, had anything to do with the numerical analysis of the inner being of Israel's god himself. It had everything to do with the two-pronged fight against paganism and dualism. Indeed, we find strong evidence during this period of Jewish groups and individuals, who, speculating on the meaning of some difficult passages in Scripture (Daniel 6, for example, or Genesis 1), suggested that the divine being might encompass a plurality. Philo could speculate about the Logos as, effectively, a second divine being; the Similitudes of Enoch might portray the Son of Man/Messiah as an eternal divine being; but none of those show any awareness that they are trangressing normal Jewish monotheism. And nor are they. The oneness of Israel's god, the creator, was never an analysis of this god's inner existence, but always a polemical doctrine over against paganism and dualism. It was only with the rise of Christianity, and arguably under the influence both of polemical constraint and Hellenizing philosophy, that Jews in the second and subsequent centuries reinterpreted ‘monotheism’ as ‘the numerical oneness of the divine being’ .

So it makes perfect sense that Paul, in the typical Jewish background of his time, could rephrase the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 ‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD’ as, ‘for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.’ (1 Corinthians 8:6), with the clear intention of showing that Jesus was Israel's god.

AVmetro

July 9th 2003, 08:31 AM

I am a MonoPersonalTheist and you are a PolyPersonalTheist.

Agreed. However, this does not negate the fact that I am still a monotheist. And a strict one at that. :smile:

When Jesus repeated the Shema in Mark 12:29 he did so by refering to that one God as his God and to that God in the third person thus excluding himself from being the God of the Shema.

I see that He is quoting scripture as opposed to "excluding Himself" from being God. If you were to read vs35 of the same chapter from which you have drawn the above, you will see that He does the same thing in regards to Himself :smile:
See also:
Mat 22:41-45 But the Pharisees having been gathered, Jesus questioned them, saying, What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He? They say to Him, David's. He said to them, Then how does David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying,
"The Lord said to my Lord, Sit off My right until I should put Your hostile ones as a footstool for Your feet?" Then if David calls Him Lord, how is He his Son?
Other instances of Christ referring to Himself in the third person:
Mar 9:41 For whoever gives you a cup of cold water to drink in My name, because you are of Christ, truly I say to you, In no way he will lose his reward. Luk 24:25-26 And He said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe on all things which the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?

Luk 24:45-46 Then He opened up their mind to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, So it is written, and so the Christ must suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.

Jesus' inclusion of the Shema makes this Creed not merely a Jewish Creed, but now the central doctrine for the expression of God for Christian monotheism as well.

Agreed.

The scribe to whom he spoke was a Jew, and Jews today just as they did then believed God to be one person.

When the scribe replied, once again speaking about God in the third person singular with "He is one" Jesus answered in the affirmative to this man's understanding of the oneness of God by saying he was not far off from the kingdom of God.

He answered that there was one God and Jesus agreed with Him. Did you expect us to have Him disagree?
Christ is more in citing the verse also demonstrating the principle of loving God with all of one's being. And it is at this value that Christ is to be held equally with the Father. See Jn5:23..cf..Rev5:13 etc. Ergo, Christ is in fact not excluded.

Therefore, Jesus was also a MonoPersonalTheist.

See Mark 12:35 (immediately following the context in question) and hold your reasoning consistently.

God bless