One In The Greek [Archive] - Page 2 - Apostolic Friends Forum

rdp

09-03-2019, 09:50 PM

Koine Greek is best learned in a college classroom under the guidance of a professor.

*Yes, that’s the very point I have been making all along, but, unfortunately for you, you’re relying on outdated data. Wallace and many other grammarians understand that masculine denotes personhood when applied to personal beings, as the grammars, lexicons, and most importantly, the mountain upon mountains of LXX & GNT examples (several that I have already posted on here).

*In fact, when I made this point in my debate w. James White, his response was simply to state that the argument from the masculine gender is a valid point (again, this is just elementary Greek that is only challenged by those ignorant of Koine’ Greek). Don’t ya’ think he would have offered grammatical evidence to overthrow this truism if he had any? Of course he would have, but in the process he would have looked foolish (as y’all do on here).

*You can continue to drink from Avery’s gross ignorance if you please, but again, there’s a REALLY good reason no one takes him seriously in academia-proper. Goodness, he cannot even comprehend (f apparently you’re no better) when you place passages such as Romans 12.5, which plainly uses “hen” when describing “many,” and then switches to the masculine singular “Heis” when describing an “individual.”

*Typical Avery, he merely blathers on about “incompetence” (said the man who believes NASA “staged” the moon landing :heeheehee)—all the while he cannot read Greek or Hebrew, knows virtually nothing whatsoever about morphology, parsing and syntactical nuances (quick, go look that up Avery, LOL!), etc., etc. He’s simply a pseudo “academic” who makes some of the most outlandish claims I have ever read. I have GENUINELY wondered before if he was some sort of spammer or something. Just too ignorant to believe this is a serious person.

rdp

09-03-2019, 10:11 PM

The statement made by Jesus Christ in John 10:30 is very interesting. But Neither John nor Jesus said anything about a body in that verse.

*I have absolutely no idea why you keep talking about “one body?” I never made any assertion about “one body”—you seem to be making an equivocation fallacy here, equating “body” w. “one person” of the masculine singular.

*Thus, once again, you & the moon-dreamer are attacking a nonexistent straw man :heeheehee.

rdp

09-03-2019, 10:17 PM

For years I used yahweh. Today I know it is a devil name.

That dissolved 100% when I realized that God had preserved his pure word in the Authorized Version.

* See what I mean folks? Ignorance personified and certified!

:crazy

:jaw

:banghead

Steven Avery

09-03-2019, 11:07 PM

I have not started even one thread here to promote "Yeshua" the Hebrew name. Good, you seemed to be a little aggressive on this thread.

The Majority Text family is my favorite Bible. KJV and the NKJV are the only two in that family that I know of that we can actually buy. The WEB once had a New Testament. I dont know if it is still available. In today's terminology the WEB is Majority Greek, the AV and NKJV are Received Text. The WEB is junk because it has the yahweh devil, and is missing precious Bible verses like the heavenly witnesses and likely Acts 8:37, along with many other changes from the pure Bible.

You say Yahweh is a devil name.
I hope you would not say the same about YAH. NO! .. Jehovah, Yehovah, Jah, Yah, are all perfectly beautiful Bible names. Jah is the short version of Jehovah, poethic J-AH. A forum on Facebook called The Creator's Name can be very helpful.

One can certainly say the Lords name in his own tongue and be fine. I see no point tho in drawing back from using Yeshua especially since it was then and still is now (in Hebrew) his name. His name in the pure Bible is JESUS. Using Yeshua large-scale for English worship is a type of spiritual crutch, usually based on false attacks on the name of Jesus, attacks that try to instill Jesus-fear.

Steven Avery

09-03-2019, 11:24 PM

(BDAG): εἷς, μία, ἕν, gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός a numerical term, ‘one’ (Hom.+): 1 a SINGLE PERSON or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one.

*Do you understand how to read a lexicon and what definition they usually place first Scott? Hint: it’s the one of primacy.
So you really think a "single person or thing" (or entity) is a single person?

And do you even have the page? If you do, you should post it online.

BDAG
https://books.google.com/books?id=4gyfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA291

Thanks for showing your ignorance.

Alan Kurschner pointed out your blunder here:

On Roger Perkins’ Lexical Fallacies in his Oneness Debate with James White
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2011/12/20/on-roger-perkins-lexical-fallacies-in-his-oneness-debate-with-james-white/

Further, the Greek term heis has a semantic range and context can only determine the meaning. BDAG says:

1. a single pers. or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one
2. a single entity, with focus on uniformity or quality, one
3. an unspecified entity, some/one=τὶς,
4. marker of someth. that is first, the first

This is probably the first time I have used Alan Kurschner as the accurate source, however he did tear apart your nonsense.

By not coming to grips with your blunders, and accepting correction, you do a great disservice to oneness apologetics. It is too bad that the oneness side is represented by a charlatan.

Steven Avery

09-03-2019, 11:46 PM

Wallace and many other grammarians understand that masculine denotes personhood when applied to personal beings, With the qualifications, You are basically giving a tautology when your own statements are simply false, since they omit the qualifications.

This also begs the question as to what is a "personal being" and what is a "person". Is the Holy Spirit a personal being? Is the Holy Spirit a person? Here you have made yourself a vessel of Trinitarian constructs.

*In fact, when I made this point in my debate w. James White, his response was simply to state that the argument from the masculine gender is a valid point This is worthless without the actual text and context of the section. Typical junk.

when you place passages such as Romans 12:5 , which plainly uses “hen” when describing “many,” and then switches to the masculine singular “Heis” when describing an “individual.” Generally you do not understand that the surrounding grammar is compelling whether the one is masculine, feminine or neuter. If you are going to make claims, you should carefully look at the grammar of verses such as:

Romans 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another.

Let us start with the basics.
Who do you see as an individual here being described?
With masculine grammar.

morphology, parsing and syntactical nuances (quick, go look that up Avery, LOL!), Yet these are the areas where blunder continually.

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:00 AM

So you really think a "single person or thing" (or entity) is a single person?

And do you even have the page? If you do, you should post it online.

BDAG
https://books.google.com/books?id=4gyfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA291

Thanks for showing your ignorance.

Alan Kurschner pointed out your blunder here:

This is probably the first time I have used Alan Kurschner as the accurate source, however he did tear apart your nonsense.

By not coming to grips with your blunders, and accepting correction, you do a great disservice to oneness apologetics. It is too bad that the oneness side is represented by a charlatan.

*LOL—said the whacko who thinks the AV/KJV is the only “pure Bible,” that NASA “staged” the moon landing and about 100 other fantasy-island type claims :heeheehee.

*Here, take a look at my blistering response to Kushner’s article: http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/search/label/Roger%20Perkins%20Response%20to%20Jeffery%20Krause %20updated%20Feb

*If you’re going to side with Trinitarians make sure to take your own medicine and post the rebuttal (that in your blind froth probably didn’t even realize existed).

*You asked, “So you really think a "single person or thing" (or entity) is a single person?“—well, ummm, yes Steven, a “single person” generally describes a...ready for this great revelation?...a single person. LOL.

*Oh, and Steven Avery referring to someone else as “ignorant” is about like Hillary calling someone “liberal” :happydance. Yea, what was I ever doing thinking that BDAG defines “heis” w. it’s primary definition of “one person”....just like a ton of other grammarians. Pssst, hey Avery, how much formal “Greek” have you had again:_________? LOL.

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:08 AM

With the qualifications, You are basically giving a tautology when your own statements are simply false, since they omit the qualifications.

This also begs the question as to what is a "personal being" and what is a "person". Is the Holy Spirit a personal being? Is the Holy Spirit a person? Here you have made yourself a vessel of Trinitarian constructs.

This is worthless without the actual text and context of the section. Typical junk.

Generally you do not understand that the surrounding grammar is compelling whether the one is masculine, feminine or neuter. If you are going to make claims, you should carefully look at the grammar of verses such as:

Romans 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another.

Let us start with the basics.
Who do you see as an individual here being described?
With masculine grammar.

Yet these are the areas where blunder continually.

*No “blunder”—just grammatical facts that you’re blindly ignorant of...just as with your supposed “pure Bible” gibberish. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. Worse, you’re still attempting to teach others what you have no earthly clue about yourself ‘eh Avery? As one brother told me, “We’re just going to have to wait this ignorance to pass off the scene since they’re never going to acknowledge their errors.” Couldn’t agree more.

*The “junk” spews exclusively from your religious pride and typical rife ignorance that you’re known for—not the actual biblical data itself. Anyone w. the ability to read can see all of the quotes after quotes and scripture after scripture wherein the masculine adjective denotes a sole “individual” (do I really have to teach you what an “individual” means in Romans 12.5 now :heeheehee?). See how easy that was Avery:thumbsup?

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 12:16 AM

* See what I mean folks? Ignorance personified and certified! You mixed two totally unrelated quotes. To try to give the false impression that I would strongly attack the name Yeshua.

================

The AV truth helped me to realize that JESUS is the name above all other names. Yeshua can be acceptable, especially in Hebrew worship, but not as a way to elbow aside Jesus in English reading and worship (or water baptism, as at Homestead Heritage.)

Also, when I found myself with Messianics who were acting as 'Jesus police' listening to hear if you were praying to Jesus, I realized it was the end-of-the-road.

================

Yahweh being a dark-side name is discussed in the teaching from Nehemia Gordon, "Have you been praying to Jupiter?". And in a 2017 thread here:

AFF
connecting dots - Acts 14 pagan Jupiter is yahweh
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=50557

It is truly vital that oneness pastors and laymen give this serious consideration. It is easy to see that "Yahweh" is a terrible corruption, and JEHOVAH and the LORD are correct.

Please try to study this out, and share it, and ultimately you have to set up a strong standard, where you protest any worship-usage of 'yahweh'.

When I was assaulted at Homestead Heritage at 2009 with a mangled version of "Days of Elijah", where the chorus was changed to "no God but Yahweh" -- the Holy Spirit impelled me to RUN THE AISLES .. out of the tent.

================

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 12:25 AM

*No “blunder”—just grammatical facts that you’re blindly ignorant of...j [/COLOR] blah blah. Try to attack the messenger.

And I appreciate the fact that Scott and I could see very clearly your errors in this thread, and share with others. (There is little or no point writing for you.)

A lot has been learned. In fact, in some of your apologetics you do okay, but it is deep-sixed by your stance on grammar. Your trinitarian opponents are not that strong, but they do note some of your more gross fallacies.

Even Alan Kurschner tore you to threads on Romans 12:5 and BDAG.

Steven

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:27 AM

You mixed two totally unrelated quotes. To try to give the false impression that I would strongly attack the name Yeshua.

================

The AV truth helped me to realize that JESUS is the name above all other names. Yeshua can be acceptable, especially in Hebrew worship, but not as a way to elbow aside Jesus in English reading and worship (or water baptism, as at Homestead Heritage.)

================

Yahweh being a dark-side name is discussed in the teaching from Nehemia Gordon, "Have you been praying to Jupiter?". It is truly vital that oneness pastors and laymen give this serious consideration. It is easy to see that "Yahweh" is a terrible corruption, and JEHOVAH and the LORD are correct.

*Well, yes, and Nehemiah Gordon’s nonsense has been refuted an nauseum, but, this is a typical Avery-esque “source.” See here for starters: https://www.snydertalk.com/2018/05/17/17-2018-snydertalk-yahweh-nehemia-gordon-wrong/

*Ironically, just last night I wrapped up my first year Hebrew class and one of the professors taught a lesson on why “Jehovah” is due to a medieval misunderstanding of the vowel pointings. I already knew that Jehovah was an absolutely wrong reading, but he really opens it up. Now, to be fair, he also does not accept Yah-weh (he accepts the first syllable, but not the last). Here’s the lesson for review: https://dailydoseofhebrew.com/special-editions/divine-name/

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:30 AM

blah blah. Try to attack the messenger.

And I appreciate the fact that Scott and I could see very clearly your errors in this thread, and share with others.

A lot has been learned. In fact, in some of your apologetics you do okay, but it is deep-sixed by your stance on grammar.

Even Alan Kurschner tore you to threads on Romans 12:5 and BDAG.

Steven

*Blahm blah, blah—“attack the messenger” (see how easy that was?). Actually, if you would wipe the froth from your mouth and read my open rejoinder to him you will see who got “tore to threads” (whatever on earth that means Steven :heeheehee?).

*Yes, a lot has been learned. And what we learned is what we already knew—AFF is chock full of blind ignorance and it’s very unfortunate that this is a public forum supposedly representative of “Oneness” since people can read such glad ignorance as in this thread.

*Masculine generally denotes personhood, as noted in quote after quote and biblical example after biblical example on this thread. For about the 5th time now, Wallace, White, Dalcour, etc. allll know this. Perhaps we should send Wallace to you for your expertise in Greek grammar when he digitizes his next papyri MS :heeheehee?

*Funny that you had no problem locating Kushner’s attack piece on me, but, for some odd reason you couldn’t locate my open, on-line rebuttal? Can we all say “agenda” together :thumbsup.

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 12:38 AM

*Well, yes, and Nehemiah Gordon’s nonsense has been refuted an nauseum, but, this is a typical Avery-esque “source.” See here for starters: https://www.snydertalk.com/2018/05/17/17-2018-snydertalk-yahweh-nehemia-gordon-wrong/

*Ironically, just last night I wrapped up my first year Hebrew class and one of the professors taught a lesson on why “Jehovah” is due to a medieval misunderstanding of the vowel pointings. I already knew that Jehovah was an absolutely wrong reading, but he really opens it up. Now, to be fair, he also does not accept Yah-weh (he accepts the first syllable, but not the last). Here’s the lesson for review: https://dailydoseofhebrew.com/special-editions/divine-name/Roger quickly runs around for some Yahwehista that disagree with the Nehemia Gordon teaching :).

That "medieval misunderstanding" is actually a myth.
If you would study both sides you would understand why.

e.g. There are many Hebraic-Jewish sources that confirm Yehovah. They kept the true pronunciation from antiquity, and thus it is in the Masoretic texts. And the theophoric names.

However, I see no zeal for truth in your writings, instead a lot of polemic and politics.

Suggestion: simply read both sides from a tabula rasa

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:41 AM

That is actually a myth. If you would study both sides you would understand why.

e.g. There are many Hebraic-Jewish sources that confirm Yehovah.

*And I assume you watched the video, pondered it in scholastic integrity and then offered this response....all within about 5 minutes, correct:highfive?

*You once again betray your lack of “scholastic” humility and sincerity. You’re a blight on Oneness Pentecostalism, unbeknownst to you of course.

Esaias

09-04-2019, 12:42 AM

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 12:44 AM

*Funny that you had no problem locating Kushner’s attack piece on me, but, for some odd reason you couldn’t locate my open, on-line rebuttal? Can we all say “agenda” together :thumbsup. [/COLOR] Feel free to give a url.

I noticed various pages resopnding to Kurschner and White, however I have not found a page that specifically addresses the criticism from Kurschner above. (His name has a "c". perhaps you do not have the right spelling in your rejoinder.)

*Here, take a look at my blistering response to Kushner’s article: http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/search/label/Roger%20Perkins%20Response%20to%20Jeffery%20Krause %20updated%20FebRomans 12:5 is not mentioned there. Let's see if you responded to the section I highlighted.

On Roger Perkins’ Lexical Fallacies in his Oneness Debate with James White
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2011/12/20/on-roger-perkins-lexical-fallacies-in-his-oneness-debate-with-james-white/

Further, the Greek term heis has a semantic range and context can only determine the meaning. BDAG says:

1. a single pers. or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one
2. a single entity, with focus on uniformity or quality, one
3. an unspecified entity, some/one=τὶς,
4. marker of someth. that is first, the first

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:45 AM

Roger quickly runs around for some Yahwehista that disagree with the Nehemia Gordon teaching :).

That "medieval misunderstanding" is actually a myth.
If you would study both sides you would understand why.

e.g. There are many Hebraic-Jewish sources that confirm Yehovah. They kept the true pronunciation from antiquity, and thus it is in the Masoretic texts. And the theophoric names.

However, I see no zeal for truth in your writings, instead a lot of polemic and politics.

Suggestion: simply read both sides from a tabula rasa

*Funny, I just posted the same thing about you prior to your edit, see above. Zeal for truth is what led me to spend 10 years in virtually nothing but rigorous research. Still a lot to learn for sure, but can easily and quickly spot elementary errors such as yours.

*BTW, you do realize that the Masoretes were the scribes that added the vowel pointings don’t you? Ponder what that means for a while Avery. My guess is you’ll simply dismiss this also w. a wave of your pompous hand. You REALLY need to take some original language courses, I can even send you the links :thumbsup!

Esaias

09-04-2019, 12:47 AM

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:47 AM

Feel free to give a url.

I noticed various pages resopnding to Kurschner and White, however I have not found a page that specifically addresses the criticism from Kurschner above. (His name has a "c". perhaps you do not have the right spelling in your rejoinder.)

*I already posted the link above. You have to scroll down to about midway of that article to review my response to Kushner’s hit piece (should have mentioned that earlier).

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:50 AM

Has anyone addressed Gal 3:28? Ye are all one (adj-nms) in Christ Jesus. If heis always means a person, this would mean we are all one person in Christ? Or am I misunderstanding what is being claimed about heis?

*That’s correct, which is the very reason many translations render this text as “one person” (cf. Thayer, NEB, etc.). I do go into detail about this reading on my blog. Much easier than me having to go relook-up all the quotes, etc. :).

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 12:52 AM

*I already posted the link above. You have to scroll down to about midway of that article to review my response to Kushner’s hit piece (should have mentioned that earlier). Your response is gibberish.

RP:
*Apparently Kurshner is the one who needs a few lessons on how to use a lexicon...did he overlook the very initial definition provided by BDAG (demonstrating primacy) of "a single person...with focus on [the] quantitative aspect" (i.e., quantity)? Again, his own excellent source proves my point (not mention how this does not interact with Wuest, Thayer, Robertson, Zodhiates, etc.)! I would say he needs to take his own advice below, "This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit lexical fallacies." Very good! The idea of "primacy" in a long involved definition involving persons, things and entities is Perkins absurdity. Prattling ignorance.

Then you mention a bunch of names without quotes. Worthless.

We know you liked the Jason Weatherly quote of Joseph Henry Thayer because it was totally doctored.

Your response barely qualifies as nothing.

And I have no problem complimenting a trinitarian when he makes a sound argument.

=============

Steven

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:55 AM

Gal 5:14 has "one word", which "one" is parsed as a dative masculine singular. That cannot be taken to mean the law is fulfilled in one person (within the context of the verse). Logos is masculine, so the "one" which modifies it must be masculine.

Somebody help me out here.

*(AGNT-APP) ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ· Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

*This text uses “heni,” not heis, and no personal being is in view Bro. (although, even this passage demonstrates that it was one-single commandment):

(NETFull) For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

rdp

09-04-2019, 12:57 AM

Your response is gibberish.

The idea of "primacy" in a long involved definition involving persons, things and entities is Perkins absurdity. Prattling ignorance.

Then you mention a bunch of names without quotes. Worthless.

We know you liked the Jason Weatherly quote of Joseph Henry Thayer because it was totally doctored.

Your response barely qualifies as nothing.

*Why of course it does Avery—should I post it in the “inspired” Elizabethan lingo of the 1611 translators for you to understand? BTW, you wouldn’t happen to also believe in Bigfoot would ya’ :heeheehee?

*The only “absurdity’s” flow from your gleeful stupidity about original languages (as is well documented):thumbsup. You have once again placed your ignorance of lexicography on full display. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about, and will NEVER concede your errors.

*The names I mentioned are all referenced in my debate w. White—which is what Kushner was addressing :heeheehee. Anyone can look up the page numbers and references that I made in the debate. Learn to do your own “research” Avery. I honestly feel embarrassed for you, and worse, you still plod along in typical gleeful ignorance. Next?

Esaias

09-04-2019, 12:57 AM

Esaias

09-04-2019, 01:01 AM

*(AGNT-APP) ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ· Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

*This text uses “heni,” not heis, and no personal being is in view Bro. (although, even this passage demonstrates that it was one-single commandment):

(NETFull) For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

So the parsing here https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/5-14.htm is incorrect?

1520 [e] ἑνὶ
heni one Adj-DMS

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:04 AM

So the parsing here https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/5-14.htm is incorrect?

1520 [e] ἑνὶ
heni one Adj-DMS

*Never said that. I thought you were claiming that Heis was being used. As I already pointed out, no personal being is being described in the context of this passage (as is the case in Mark 12.29, for example).

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:09 AM

Hebrews 2:11 says He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are "of one". One here is a masculine singular. I notice it doesn't say they are one, but of (ex, out of) one. That I can see suggesting a person, but it would seem awkward theologically? The Sanctifier and the sanctified are all "out of one (person)"? What is that saying?

*(NA28) ὅ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες· διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς ⸀καλεῖν.

(Wuest - The New Testament: An Expanded Translation) 11 For both He who sets apart for God and His service, and those who are set apart for God and His service, are all out of one source, for which reason He is not ashamed to be calling them brethren.

*Exactly the point I’ve been making. Although, henos is used here, but still masc. sing. Further demonstrates my point that a sole-single “source” is in view.

Esaias

09-04-2019, 01:15 AM

*That’s correct, which is the very reason many translations render this text as “one person” (cf. Thayer, NEB, etc.). I do go into detail about this reading on my blog. Much easier than me having to go relook-up all the quotes, etc. :).

So, we are all one person in Christ? I"m trying to wrap my head around that, what it would actually mean. I can see "one body" as a metaphor for a corporate unity composed of many persons. We are one is equivalent to we are united or joined together as a (composite) whole. But saying we are one person, I don't understand what that would mean. We are many persons.

I understand why many say that Jesus' "I and my Father are one" is not a declaration of unitary personhood, because whenever two people (persons) are said to be one, it is understand they are one something-other-than-person. Like one corporate entity (a corpus or body composed of more than one person, treated as a single entity). I'm not even certain Jesus was trying to say He and God were one "person", I think such a concept would have been incomprehensible at the time. Perhaps He is saying He and the Father are one being, a unity (one human, one divine)? Two people being one person would seem to be properly expressed as "the same" rather than "one", which is subject to common understanding as a corporate unity, not an ontologically personal unity (one person).

Maybe I'm just tired. My brain hurts.

Esaias

09-04-2019, 01:16 AM

*Never said that. I thought you were claiming that Heis was being used. As I already pointed out, no personal being is being described in the context of this passage (as is the case in Mark 12.29, for example).

Well, the text there says heni but parses it as a dative masculine singular???? Did they parse it wrong? Typo?

Esaias

09-04-2019, 01:19 AM

I appreciate the contributions made in this thread. Even if two of you brothers don't seem to get along, I appreciate both of you. :)

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:22 AM

So, we are all one person in Christ? I"m trying to wrap my head around that, what it would actually mean. I can see "one body" as a metaphor for a corporate unity composed of many persons. We are one is equivalent to we are united or joined together as a (composite) whole. But saying we are one person, I don't understand what that would mean. We are many persons.

I understand why many say that Jesus' "I and my Father are one" is not a declaration of unitary personhood, because whenever two people (persons) are said to be one, it is understand they are one something-other-than-person. Like one corporate entity (a corpus or body composed of more than one person, treated as a single entity). I'm not even certain Jesus was trying to say He and God were one "person", I think such a concept would have been incomprehensible at the time. Perhaps He is saying He and the Father are one being, a unity (one human, one divine)? Two people being one person would seem to be properly expressed as "the same" rather than "one", which is subject to common understanding as a corporate unity, not an ontologically personal unity (one person).

Maybe I'm just tired. My brain hurts.

*I quoted, for examples, Thayer & JFB earlier (see also NEB, ERV) where they pointed out that because the masculine and not the neuter was employed in Galatians 3.28 the passage should technically be rendered as “one person”—this is simply the normative force of the masculine singular when a personal being is being described. In fact, the passage is a saying that in Christ Jesus there is no distinctions, but we are all considered “one person” in Christ Jesus (of course, Paul is using hyperbole to make a point).

Esaias

09-04-2019, 01:24 AM

*I quoted, for examples, Thayer & JFB earlier (see also NEB, ERV) where they pointed out that because the masculine and not the neuter was employed in Galatians 3.28 the passage should technically be rendered as “one person”—this is simply the normative force of the masculine singular when a personal being is being described. In fact, the passage is a saying that in Christ Jesus there is no distinctions, but we are all considered “one person” in Christ Jesus (of course, Paul is using hyperbole to make a point).

And how do we answer a possible claim that Jesus was using hyperbole to make a point, like Paul was, in saying He and the Father are "one"?

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:24 AM

Well, the text there says heni but parses it as a dative masculine singular???? Did they parse it wrong? Typo?

*No sir, the masculine singular is used here, but I thought you were saying that the actual adjective was “heis.” Regardless, as I pointed out, no personal being is described, but, even in this passage the single-sole force is in view...which is my whole point.

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:27 AM

And how do we answer a possible claim that Jesus was using hyperbole to make a point, like Paul was, in saying He and the Father are "one"?

*His eyewitnesses and original audience didn’t take it that was in that context. They took it as a plain affirmation that He was the One OT Yahweh. Galatians 3.28 is quite clear that Paul is using metaphorical language inasmuch as there is certainly still males and females in the church :).

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:29 AM

So, we are all one person in Christ? I"m trying to wrap my head around that, what it would actually mean. I can see "one body" as a metaphor for a corporate unity composed of many persons. We are one is equivalent to we are united or joined together as a (composite) whole. But saying we are one person, I don't understand what that would mean. We are many persons.

I understand why many say that Jesus' "I and my Father are one" is not a declaration of unitary personhood, because whenever two people (persons) are said to be one, it is understand they are one something-other-than-person. Like one corporate entity (a corpus or body composed of more than one person, treated as a single entity). I'm not even certain Jesus was trying to say He and God were one "person", I think such a concept would have been incomprehensible at the time. Perhaps He is saying He and the Father are one being, a unity (one human, one divine)? Two people being one person would seem to be properly expressed as "the same" rather than "one", which is subject to common understanding as a corporate unity, not an ontologically personal unity (one person).

Maybe I'm just tired. My brain hurts.

My brain hurts too Bro.—for many reasons after this thread ;)! Gotta’ turn in for the night. Be back when I can. God bless....even you Avery :thumbsup!

Scott Pitta

09-04-2019, 01:41 AM

Esaias

09-04-2019, 01:47 AM

A question for the Greek scholars:

If Jesus wanted to say He and the Father were one in the sense of simply being in unity, but NOT ontologically one person, how would He have said it (in Greek)?

Scott Pitta

09-04-2019, 01:50 AM

He did say that very thing in Jn. 10:30.

His prayers in the garden also show the unity (nonontological) he had with the Father.

Got to go to work.

rdp

09-04-2019, 01:56 AM

The BAGD quote is interesting.

It is not a reference to a person in the theological sense. Certainly not in the ontological way you imply.

Is BAGD saying it should be translated as "single person" ?? No it is not. Nor is it saying it should be translated as "thing". It is describing what the word means, not how it should be translated.

The focus of heis is on a quantitative aspect, one.

Yes, I know the differences between the editions of BAGD, I own 2 myself. I have been using them since my college days, when my professor, Mary Lou Myrick recommended BAGD as the best lexicon to use.

Why no reference to current Koine Grammars ? Is it because they are not online ?

*You have some strange issue with how a word is translated that I have explained to you over and over. It’s as if you’ve latched onto some odd notion that if a word isn’t translated a certain way it cannot mean anything other than what it is translated. Of course, as pointed out many times already, if, say, the perfect tense or imperfect tenses were completely translated out in every case, you would have volumes upon volumes of books called the Bible. This is where exegesis, syntax, grammar, lexicography, etc. enters the picture.

*Worse, I DID reference both older and current Koine Grammars—and all anyone has to do is scroll back to see them. I currently have over 2,000 resources, mostly grammatical and exegetical and mostly current (e.g., DSS, BHS, NA28, UBS-5, NIGTC, Baker & Zondervan Exegetical Series, Perseus, GGBB, BBH, BBG, etc.). Should I stop my whole world and post all of this—just so you can reject it and ask for more??

* Do you not recall saying that I had posted a lot of data? BDAG is ANYTHING but “out of date”—and the primary meaning they ascribe to these adjectives (w. the masculine singular referenced first, as always of course), is “one person.” I also referenced Robertson, JFB, LXX, GNT, Zodhiates, Wuest, Thayer, etc....all to be completely denied and asked for “more current sources” :heeheehee.

*You’re simply being silly at this point. I already know Avery and expected absolutely nothing less from him, but, honestly, I thought you understood a little more about Koine’ than what you apparently do (BTW, you DO realize that the text book you referenced is seriously outdated [Summers?] don’t you? Good for you, bad for me?).

*Simple truth is that the masculine singular 3-3 adjective, when applied to personal beings, denotes “one person” just as JFB, Robertson, Zacharias, White, etc. all note. The surrounding context of Mark 12.29 makes this even more plain, as I have already pointed out. This is just beyond silly at this point. Carry on Scott.

rdp

09-04-2019, 04:38 AM

*Came across these additional resources after logging off earlier:

(Wuest Word Studies): Galatians 3.20: The word one is masculine in gender, and therefore is personal, referring to a person. Translation: Now, the mediator is not (a go-between representing the interests) of one (individual), but God is one (individual).

(NET Bible Translators Notes): John 10.30: ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one "thing." Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity.

(Pillar NT Exegetical Commentary; Dr. D.A. Carson): John 10.30: The word for ‘one’ is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest, for then the distinction between Jesus and God already introduced in 1:1b would be obliterated, and John could not refer to Jesus praying to his Father, being commissioned by and obedient to his Father, and so on.

**While we would obviously disagree with their theological assertions regarding the supposed “two divine persons” in John 10.30, Still, this plainly demonstrates that grammarians know that the masculine singular adjective, when applied to personal beings, equals “one person/individual.”

*So, just to recap one final time, in this thread I have posted quotes from the LXX, GNT, BDAG, Wuest, Thayer, JFB, A.T. Robertson, Daniel Wallace, D.A. Carson, White, Dalcour, et al.—all of whom openly affirm that the masculine singular denotes “one person/individual.” And, I could quote more (I see this assertion made all the time by grammarians), but, again, I have already wasted enough time on here. I zero doubt that these clear assertions by numerous Koine’ Greek grammarians, too, will be denied on AFF. Hopefully beneficial to someone though.

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 07:13 AM

A question for the Greek scholars:
If Jesus wanted to say He and the Father were one in the sense of simply being in unity, but NOT ontologically one person, how would He have said it (in Greek)? In addition to what Scott said:

a) I began a thread on CARM on this grammar issue. They have difficulty though, since they are more concerned with doctrinal jockeying than finding simple answers.

b) the grammar issue was raised in the early church, from the Latin text

c) my sense so far is that anything less than absolute identity would tend to the neuter.

“m1 and the m2 are one”

m1 and m2 are masculine nouns

Example of absolute identity.

Jehovah and the Father are one.
(This ‘one’ would be masculine.)

I did have some conversation first with a Greek-speaking Bilble believer. We covered the basics, but did not drill down to close relationship and connectedness. Calvin discussing Ephesians 5:5 is close relation, without identity.

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 07:24 AM

*I quoted, for examples, Thayer & JFB earlier (see also NEB, ERV) where they pointed out that because the masculine and not the neuter was employed in Galatians 3.28 the passage should technically be rendered as “one person”—.Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

⸀πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Equally simple Greek sentence construction.
"For you are all one in Christ Jesus".
There are no linguistic markers to indicate "one" in this sentence must be translated differently that the normal use.

Roger, for Thayer, Is this the phony doctored quote from Jason Weatherly that you endorsed?
We know he does not support a translation of "one person".

And beyond the phony commentary, your words that that you place here and there, the ERV has:

“You are all the same in Christ Jesus”,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3%3A27-29&version=ERV

so you are simply confused or deceiving about that reference, nothing about person, and this was pointed out to you by Edward Dalcour in 2018.

The Footloose Theology: A Refutation of Oneness-Unitarian Roger Perkins on John 10:30 and Heis
https://christiandefense.org/oneness/the-footloose-theology-a-refutation-of-oneness-unitarian-roger-perkins-on-john-1030/

The NEB (1961 first edition, Tasker and company) does have that weak translation, that simply makes no sense at all.

=========================

Some commentary will connect Galatians 3:28 to:

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And from that, commentary like JFB talks of one new man.

=========================

From my quick review, the following are all masculine:

Jew Greek
bond free
Christ Jesus

while these two are neuter
male female

So I have a sense that masculine would be a very natural grammar for the 'one', without needing or reading in any doctrinal ideas.

Scott especially might want to comment.

=========================

That gender review is given here:

Tendencies in the interpretation of Galatians 3:28 since 1990 (2014)
D. Francois Tolmie
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1015-87582014000200006

the terms "male" and "female" are both in the neuter gender, whereas the terms in the other two pairs are all in the masculine - a fact that he links to the broad scope covered by the neuter gender (Walden 2009:50).

=========================

Scott Pitta

09-04-2019, 03:32 PM

Evang.Benincasa

09-04-2019, 06:26 PM

For what it is worth, LXX Greek grammar is not exactly the same as Koine Greek grammar. I am not trained in LXX Greek.

What on earth?

Scott, are you drinking that water again?

Evang.Benincasa

09-04-2019, 06:32 PM

Evang.Benincasa

09-04-2019, 07:01 PM

a question for the greek scholars:

If jesus wanted to say he and the father were one in the sense of simply being in unity, but not ontologically one person, how would he have said it (in greek)?

Μάρκος 10:8

καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ.

Still in Mark 10:8 Jesus is still saying that the two are literally one. Yet, we walk away with believing it is a unified one. Which the body still has only one head. In John 10:30 we still have a literal one, while the high church has a take away believing it is a unified one. But still, this body also only has one head. The God is the head of the Body of Jesus, Jesus is the head of man, the man is the head of the woman. Hence the church never has female leadership over men. Because in the church the head is one, which is male.

William D. Mounce explains ἓν in John 10:30 to mean one and the same.

So, Mike, you know English, you speak English. As you see in this thread you aren't going to win a debate in Greek over εἷς, μία, ἕν. Anyone who brings it up to you to prove that God is three separate persons know as much Greek as you do. So, pick up your KJV, believe that Jesus is going to speak through you, and speak English to those who you desire to win for Christ.

Evang.Benincasa

09-04-2019, 07:08 PM

Interesting how the Gee Hove Witnesses in their rag Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 24, uses the argument that ἕν in John 10:30 is denoting unity. That Jesus was stating that He is a united one with the Father. "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me?" I know I am preaching to the choir, but this is Jesus saying the same exact thing as He says in John 10:30. Every Jehovah Witness said what? But every One God Jesus Namer said Amen! :nodding

Esaias

09-04-2019, 07:48 PM

Evang.Benincasa

09-04-2019, 07:49 PM

Wow. Liberal snob, much?

:highfive

rdp

09-04-2019, 10:09 PM

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Roger, for Thayer, Is this the phony doctored quote from Jason Weatherly that you endorsed?
We know he does not support a translation of "one person".

And beyond the phony commentary, your words that that you place here and there, the ERV has:

“You are all the same in Christ Jesus”,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3%3A27-29&version=ERV

so you are simply confused or deceiving about that reference, nothing about person, and this was pointed out to you by Edward Dalcour in 2018.

The Footloose Theology: A Refutation of Oneness-Unitarian Roger Perkins on John 10:30 and Heis
https://christiandefense.org/oneness/the-footloose-theology-a-refutation-of-oneness-unitarian-roger-perkins-on-john-1030/

The NEB (1961 first edition, Tasker and company) does have that weak translation, that simply makes no sense at all.

=========================

Some commentary will connect Galatians 3:28 to:

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And from that, commentary like JFB talks of one new man.

=========================

From my quick review, the following are all masculine:

Jew Greek
bond free
Christ Jesus

while these two are neuter
male female

So I have a sense that masculine would be a very natural grammar for the 'one', without needing or reading in any doctrinal ideas.

Scott especially might want to comment.

=========================

That gender review is given here:

=========================

*Steven, you have GOT to have mental challenges, or either you’re just yanking my chain. Thayer not only “supports” a translation of “one person” in Galatians 3.28–he explicitly DID translate this passage as “one person!” Shall I post the direct quote for you again to accommodate your lack of reading comprehension?

*Read it and weep Avery: Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: γ. absol.: Mt. 23:8–10; Heb. 2:11; 11:12; and where it takes the place of a predicate, Gal. 3:20 [cf. W. 593 (551)], 28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself).

*You clearly have major issues since you unashamedly claim above that “Thayer does not support a translation of ‘one person’.” Don’t blame me Avery, you did it to yourself once again:heeheehee. I declare, you literally do this every single time I interact w. you :happydance.

*Oh, and since you have posted Dalcour sloppy attack on me, here, let me also post my tautological rejoinder to his article about. Here’s the last part, but all readers need to do is go to the initial rejoinder to follow the complete refutation. Since you apparently are only interested in saving face and posting the Trinitarian attacks on me, which is very revealing, I’ll help you out at every turn :heeheehee. Here’s the rejoinders: https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/07/20/exegetical-surrejoinder-%cf%80%cf%81%e1%bd%b8%cf%82-edward-dalcour-iv/

*You might equally note that Dalcour has dodged me in public debate for years on end now, all the while he consistently debates Oneness pastors whom he views as easy targets. Now, shall I begin posting all of the online posts about your rife KJVO stupidity? Pssst, hey Avery, you dooo realize that Thayer was a translator don’t you? LOL.

*Run along now Avery. I have grown up things to do:thumbsup.

rdp

09-04-2019, 10:16 PM

Overall, I am unimpressed.

I could purchase a stack of Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons, and then add a pile of scholarly commentaries.

But in the end, I would not be able to read or translate Hebrew. I would simply be a person with an impressive library.

Greek grammar, especially the details, are best left to those who have college level Greek under their belt. As a rule, I do not discuss the finer points of grammar with those who have not studied Koine Greek in a college setting.

This is frustrating for some, but it is my policy.

As a reminder, I am no apologist. I occasionally post as a courtesy for those who have kindly assisted me in my book project.

I hope my contributions have been of value to the original post.

*Umm, Scott, for about the 5th time now, I DO have university Greek and Hebrew “under my belt.” That’s the whole point I’ve been making to the moon-man (:heeheehee)!

*I have provided quotation after quotation and biblical example after example clearly demonstrating that the masculine singular “heis” speaks of “one person”—despite how many times you & the Gail Riplinger wanna’ be might parrot otherwise. The quotes are for all to see.

*Speaking of being unimpressed, trust me, that’s a two way street :thumbsup. If God’s Word cannot convince you then I am certainly wasting my time—as virtually every single time I log on here :nod.

rdp

09-04-2019, 10:18 PM

What on earth?

Scott, are you drinking that water again?

*Exactly! More pure nonsense.

rdp

09-04-2019, 10:19 PM

Μάρκος 10:8

καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ.

Still in Mark 10:8 Jesus is still saying that the two are literally one. Yet, we walk away with believing it is a unified one. Which the body still has only one head. In John 10:30 we still have a literal one, while the high church has a take away believing it is a unified one. But still, this body also only has one head. The God is the head of the Body of Jesus, Jesus is the head of man, the man is the head of the woman. Hence the church never has female leadership over men. Because in the church the head is one, which is male.

William D. Mounce explains ἓν in John 10:30 to mean one and the same.

So, Mike, you know English, you speak English. As you see in this thread you aren't going to win a debate in Greek over εἷς, μία, ἕν. Anyone who brings it up to you to prove that God is three separate persons know as much Greek as you do. So, pick up your KJV, believe that Jesus is going to speak through you, and speak English to those who you desire to win for Christ.

:thumbsup:yourock

Steven Avery

09-04-2019, 11:44 PM

Galatians 3:28 (AV)
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Yes, Thayer and the NEB actually had the weak "one person" text for ONE verse, Galatians 3:28. Thanks for the Thayer correction.

NEB - New English Bible:
There Is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female,
for you are all one person in Christ Jesus.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBunix/NEB/NEBTextByBC.php?B=309&C=3

Thayer: 28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself);
https://books.google.com/books?id=7wVNDAjFkRoC&pg=PA186

Esaias properly asked
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=1571376&highlight=Thayer#post1571376

So, we are all one person in Christ? I"m trying to wrap my head around that, what it would actually mean. I can see "one body" as a metaphor for a corporate unity composed of many persons. We are one is equivalent to we are united or joined together as a (composite) whole. But saying we are one person, I don't understand what that would mean. We are many persons.

You tried to ignore his point, that this is a very poor English text.

*I quoted, for examples, Thayer & JFB earlier (see also NEB, ERV) where they pointed out that because the masculine and not the neuter was employed in Galatians 3.28 the passage should technically be rendered as “one person”—this is simply the normative force of the masculine singular when a personal being is being described. In fact, the passage is a saying that in Christ Jesus there is no distinctions, but we are all considered “one person” in Christ Jesus (of course, Paul is using hyperbole to make a point).

No, the passage does not say that. Two sources out of hundreds have that text. It is a weak and confusing wording.

Your ERV and JFB references are simply lies that you continue to make even after correction.

JFB talks of "one new man" in an interpretative sense, yet you lie outright and claim that the JFB says that:

"the passage should technically be rendered as “one person”.

And your lie about the ERV is simple to see:

ERV - “You are all the same in Christ Jesus”

You are such a charlatan that on your page you quoted Dalcour on the ERV, never responded, and still bring that lie over to this forum again and again.

Exegetical Surrejoinder πρὸς Edward Dalcour (III)
Roger Perkins - July 19, 2017
https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/07/19/exegetical-surrejoinder-%CF%80%CF%81%E1%BD%B8%CF%82-edward-dalcour-iii/

(Dalcour): First, Perkins misleads he readers here. For both the ASV (“for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus”) and the ERV (“You are all the same in Christ Jesus”), none say “one person.” As said, Perkins has a reputation for misquoting and botching sources. He selects translations that he can put a spin on, as he did with the older ed. of the AMP of Gal. 3:20. You gave a response on the AMP but you did not touch the ERV.

Thus, you graduated to lying outright in including that reference. The same accusation applies to your botching the JFB text.

Apparently you did remove the ASV reference.

The AMP reference was from their earlier edition of Galatians 3:20, discussed here:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1570830&postcount=101

rdp

09-04-2019, 11:53 PM

Galatians 3:28 (AV)
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Yes, Thayer and the NEB actually had the weak "one person" text for ONE verse, Galatians 3:28.

NEB:
There Is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female,
for you are all one person in Christ Jesus.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBunix/NEB/NEBTextByBC.php?B=309&C=3

Thayer: 28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself);
https://books.google.com/books?id=7wVNDAjFkRoC&pg=PA186

Esaias properly asked
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=1571376&highlight=Thayer#post1571376

You ignored his point, that this is a very poor English text.

Your ERV and JFB references are simply lies that you continue to make even after correction. JFB talks of "one new man" in an interpretative sense.

ERV - “You are all the same in Christ Jesus”

Your interpretation is absurdly weak.

You are such a charlatan that on your page you quoted Dalcour on the ERV.

You gave a response on the AMP but you did not touch the ERV.

Thus, you graduated to lying outright in including that reference.

*LOL! Avery, does Mommy know you’re up past bed time? You’re either mentally insane, or, more than likely, just another blind, ignorant Oneness pseudo “scholar.” Here, let’s recap for little Ned in the 1st Reader once again:

*D.A. Carson, JFB, A.T. Robertson, White, Dalcour, Zacharias, Wuest, Thayer, LXX, GNT, UBS Handbooks for Translators, Vincent, Wallace, etc., etc. allll plainly state that the masculine singular denotes “one person.” But, you, being the whacko that you are readily known to be repeatedly double down on your rife stupidity of original language research.

*Worse, you actually claim that you have “corrected” something in these texts—when all you’ve done is continue to place your gross ignorance on full display for all the world to see. Do you just make things up as bumble along? Remember, you claimed above that Thayer did not support the translation of “one person” in Galatians 3.28—when explicitly TRANSLATED the passage as “one person” as copied above. Hard to believe you’re really being serious (but, you’ve been this way ever since I’ve been interacting w. you, as is well noted).

*I specifically answered Esaias above. Once again, you just make things up in your fertile imagination as you fumble along. You remind me of the Apostolic Apple Dumpling Gang :nod.

*Oh, and lest I forget, here’s Galatians 3.28 so everyone can see where the ERV renders the text as: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye all are ONE MAN in Christ Jesus.” Hey Avery, how many “persons” would you suppose “one man” is:___________? LOL. Hear that background music playing? Did you just make up that ERV translation above? The “lie” is that JFB & ERV do NOT openly affirm “one person/man”—and all anyone has to do scroll back up & read the actual sources. How very weird. (Link: https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm)

*Still even worse, your quote from Dalcour above is soundly refuted in my rejoinders - that you somehow couldn’t manage to locate online :heeheehee. I declare, you seem to reach new levels of ignorance every time you try to save face. Quick, offer more diversionary tactics before you look too bad in front of everyone! :happydance

*Tell ya’ what, perhaps when the NA29 & UBS-6 come out—and when NASA goes to stage another moon landing—we’ll send them to you so they can get it all right :heeheehee. You’re a glutton for punishment Avery—but, then again, most conspiracy theorists are :thumbsup.

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 12:03 AM

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:17 AM

Note: I pointed out above that you are lying outright about JFB and ERV.
And I use the word lying deliberately, because they were specifically corrected.

Why not handle those first.

You have not even had the integrity to accept the simple and clear Edward Dalcour correction on the ERV. Your rant response to Dalcour simply omitted that factual correction and you have tried to deceive this forum by continuing to use the phony ERV claim.

============================

Then we can go into your false claim about others that you say:

Take one by one.

AFTER you accept the two corrections above.
.
============================

*Umm, there’s absolutely not one single thing to “correct” other than your continued stupidity and lies. All anyone has to do is merely click on the links I have provided to see your gross errors, as well as how Dalcour’s assertions backfired on him in the worst way (which is why he has refused to meet me in one-on-one debate at every turn).

*Simply, it is YOU who is the liar. If you’re a biblical “Christian”—I’m Elvis Presley....and you ain’t nothing but a hound dog :happydance!

*Again, can lil’ Stevie tell us all how many “persons” “one man” would be in the ERV:__________? Waiting.....:nod.

*The only thing to “correct” is your astounding (but sooo typical) gross ignorance. Goodness, all anyone has to do is read the volumes of quotes (that you merely dismiss and ignore, and then somehow reason that you’ve offered “correction” :heeheehee) all posted in this thread. Need more quotes Steven? I found many more tonight in my library. Quick, hurry and post to save face...LOL.

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 12:25 AM

There are two different ERVs.

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:34 AM

What is the text of the ERV.

Why do you use that to claim "one person".

*Can you not read English Stevie? I specifically quoted above the ERV straight from the source itself, which renders the relevant clause as “he are all ONE MAN in Christ Jesus.” How many “persons” is “one man” Avery:________?

*You and your cohort erroneously claimed that “no translation” renders this text as one person—which is flatly false, as all anyone has to do is click the link and read the tons of quotations I have provided on here. And, again, I located three more tonight in the UBS Handbooks (ready?)...FOR TRANSLATORS. Guess what they say Stevie? You can render the adjective “one” in these verses (Galatians 3.20 & 28) as “one person.” Maybe they should consult w. your grammatical “expertise” before they write their next grammar? LOL. You just never learn.

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:37 AM

What is the text of the ERV.

Why do you use that to claim "one person".

=====================================

In this quote you are lying outright about the ASV and the ESV.

Dalcour is right about your botch methodology. However, what makes it worse is your ability to use phony references even after they have been shown to be false.

*Ummm, I didn’t say the “ESV”—I said the ERV. Learn to read English before calling someone a liar Avery. You are the liar.

*Worse, not 1 SINGLE reference has been “shown to be false.” In fact, the polar opposite it true, as my rejoinders well demonstrate, as does this thread. Next?

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:42 AM

What is the Bible text of the ERV and the ASV?

Why do you use that to claim "one person".

=====================================

In this quote you are lying outright about the ASV and the ESV.

Dalcour is right about your botch methodology, and the related critique that I quoted. However, what makes it worse is your ability to use phony references even after they have been shown to be false.

The other problem is that you simply are very weak in logic.

=====================================

*Said the man who cannot even read his own selected quotes :heeheehee.

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 12:44 AM

The problem there was two different ERVs.

This is the one that was quoted by Dalcour
https://www.bible.com/bible/406/GAL.3.26-29.ERV

So your major lies from above were the ASV and JFB.

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 12:47 AM

(to be continued)

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:48 AM

The problem there was two different ERVs.

This is the one that was quoted by Dalcour
https://www.bible.com/bible/406/GAL.3.26-29.ERV

*Well, perhaps that does indeed explain why he misunderstood what I was saying. I was not aware that there were two ERV’s. To be fair, I should have stated “one man” contra “one person”...although the overriding point remains in tact.

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:51 AM

Quote the text of the ASV.

*Gladly, for the third time now:

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are ONE MAN in Christ Jesus.

*Technically, I should have quoted “one man,” but the take-home is the same regardless. One person is still in view. Tell us Steven, how many “persons” are “one man”:__________?

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 12:53 AM

*Well, perhaps that does indeed explain why he misunderstood what I was saying. I was not aware that there were two ERV’s. To be fair, I should have stated “one man” contra “one person”...although the overriding point remains in tact.The overall point is that a small minority of translators and commentaries or grammars have seen Galatians 3:28 as translatable, or paraphrased, as one man or one new man or one person.

Maybe five to ten total out of hundreds, on this one verse.

And this is extremely rare in heis verses, so why is it done in Galatians 3:28?

The great majority of translations are in the mode of the pure AV, simply translating the text.

Galatians 3:28 (AV)
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

One reason is that the verse can be linked, with some difficulty, to Ephesians 2:15.

Ephesians 2:15 (AV)
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace;

As Esaias points out, "one person" is a bumbling text in Galatians 3:28, however Ephesians 2:15 has the words for new man.

So it is simply a stumbling hermeneutical paraphrase, inferior translation. Roger likes it because if fits a false theory about heis.

The vast majority of heis verses are masculine for one simple reason. The adjective one is in a phrase with masculine grammar for the substantives and participles.

Simple grammar consistency. No more, no less. The number one.

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:55 AM

The problem there was two different ERVs.

This is the one that was quoted by Dalcour
https://www.bible.com/bible/406/GAL.3.26-29.ERV

So your major lies from above were the ASV and JFB.

*LOL—the “lie” is that ASV and JFB do NOT denote one person—as anyone w. a first grade education can read. For about the 10th time now, how many “persons” is “one man”:____________?

*C’mon lil’ Stevie, you can answer this one...I just know you can :heeheehee!

rdp

09-05-2019, 12:57 AM

The overall point is that a small minority of translators and some commentaries have seen Galatians 3:28 as translatable, or paraphrased, as one man or one new man or one person. This is extremely rare in heis verses.

One reason is that it can be linked, with some difficulty, to Ephesians 2:15.

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace;

*Now, to be expected, you’re moving the goal posts. How many “persons” is “one man”? And, does Thayer translate Galatians 3.28 as “one person” (something you flatly denied earlier)? Yes or no?

*And, no, the force of “one person” is NOT “extremely rare” regarding the masculine singular usage of “heis”—as quotation after quotation after quotation, and well as both LXX & GNT usage well demonstrates. You simply are not free to just make things up as you go along.

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 01:09 AM

btw, I will happily retract the lying accusation. Since the key case for that was the ERV, where neither Edward L. Dalcour or Roger Perkins straightened it out. Bumbling by Dalcour, since it really did not pass the smell test, and then Roger did not respond, an omission error in his rejoinder.

On my end, I should have checked it out more fully.

Apologies, and I am glad we could sort out some problems from about two years back.

===================

While I see your presentation as botched in many ways, I do not see deliberate lying, once the ERV is off the table. The post above gives a review.

As for your barrage of insults sent my way, they are so dumb that they give mostly a smile. And your LOL seem a bit weird and puerile. Your double-mindedness in trying to compliment my 1 Timothy 3:16 presentation while supporting the corruption versions is quite interesting.

Yet we have recently seen one well-known Christian with a ministry to the islamists move to an Authorized Version position. The force of scripture consistency, a far stronger text and the perservational imperative, and a far superior textual methodology were likely factors. This gentleman use to rant against me, and my belief in a perfect Bible that I can read, much like Roger Perkins today. So, I know that people can move to a better Bible position.

And you seem to be especially obsessed that the claimed moon landing is questioned. If you understood the difficulties involved, and the very limited technology of the day, and the extremes of temperature and the various dangers to life, you would be very skeptical about the claim that six such launches went to the moon, including the funky aspects around the lunar landing module.

==================

rdp

09-05-2019, 01:14 AM

Btw, I will happily retract the lying accusation. Since the key case for that the ERV, where neither Edeard L. Dalcour or Roger Perkins straightened it out.

While I see your presentation as botched in many ways, I do not see deliberate lying, once the ERV is off the table.

As for your barrage of insults sent my way, they are so dumb that they give mostly a smile.

*The odd thing is, I feel 100% identical (not merely being tit-for-tat). It’s real simple, if you can dish it out be prepared to receive it.

*Well, it’s my wife & my anniversary today, so, if I know what’s good for me I better REALLY just walk away this time :nod.

*We vehemently disagree, but that’s nothing new. Probably won’t see whatever responses y’all might make. I will also retract my return fire. Take care Steve.

Steven Avery

09-05-2019, 01:23 AM

*And, no, the force of “one person” is NOT “extremely rare” regarding the masculine singular usage of “heis”—as quotation after quotation after quotation, and well as both LXX & GNT usage well demonstrates. Out of the hundreds of heis verses, quote the New Testament verses where you believe heis should be translated one person or one man.

Thanks!

=======================

You can start with Galatians 3:28, even though it is clearly inferior translation. It wrongly prevents interpretations like "one in unity" and "one in purpose" or "one in the body of Christ" or "one on the same level". Your preferred text is non-literal, forcing a very questionable interpretation like a paraphrase, falsely limiting Bible interpretation.

This is one of the problems with trying to bring your pet doctrines into the Bible text, when the words are simply not there. It is a special type of mangling.

eg. here is Matthew Henry:
2.) That this privilege of being the children of God, and of being by baptism devoted to Christ, is now enjoyed in common by all real Christians. The law indeed made a difference between Jew and Greek, giving the Jews on many accounts the pre-eminence: that also made a difference between bond and free, master and servant, and between male and female, the males being circumcised. But it is not so now; they all stand on the same level, and are all one in Christ Jesus; as the one is not accepted on the account of any national or personal advantages he may enjoy above the other, so neither is the other rejected for the want of them; but all who sincerely believe on Christ, of what nation, or sex, or condition, soever they be, are accepted of him, and become the children of God through faith in him

By your pushing inferior translations, you end up crippled in interpretation. You hurt your own walk with God.

Esaias

09-05-2019, 02:38 AM

Some selected commentaries:

One.—The word “one” is masculine—“one man,” “a single person”—as explained in the paraphrase above. - Ellicott.

one—Greek, "one man"; masculine, not neuter, namely "one new man" in Christ (Eph 2:15). - JFB

For ye all are one, ye form a single moral person; so that now those distinctions of individuals outside of Christianity appear as non-existent, completely merged in that higher unity to which ye are all raised in virtue of your fellowship of life with Christ. - Meyer

ye are all one] ‘ye’ is emphatic, pointing to those who are ‘sons of God’, Galatians 3:26. ‘One person’, or ‘one man’. Comp. Ephesians 2:15; Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. - Cambridge Bible

—εἷς, one) A new man, who has put on Christ, Ephesians 2:15.—ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, in Christ Jesus) construed with one. - Bengel

For ye are all one in Christ Jesus (pa/nte ga\r u(mei = ei = ἐστὲ ἐν Ξριστῷ Ἰησοῦ); for all ye are one and the same man in Christ Jesus. The pronoun ὑμεῖς, ye, is inserted to recite emphatically the qualification already expressed; as if it were, "ye being what ye are, believers baptized into Christ." The apostle's object here is not, as in 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11-15, to exhort to the performance of certain mutual duties on the ground of the unity which in Christ is established among all believers, but to enforce the view that each individual's title to the inheritance is altogether irrespective of external distinctions, and is based entirely, in one case as well as in another, upon his being clothed with Christ. The word εῖς is "one and the same," as in τὸ ε{ν φρονοῦντες, "of one mind" (Philippians 2:2); and in εῖς Θεός, εῖς μεσίτης, "One and the same God, one and the same Mediator" (1 Timothy 2:5). So Chrysostom: "That is, we have all one form and one mould, even Christ's. What," he adds, "can be more awful than these words? He that was a Greek, or Jew, or bondman yesterday, carries about with him the form, not of an angel or archangel, but of the Lord of all, yea, displays in his own person the Christ." - Pulpit Commentary

Ye are all one
One moral personality. The individual differences are merged in the higher unity into which all are raised by their common life in Christ. This is the one new man, Ephesians 2:15. - Vincent's Word Studies

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/3-28.htm

Michael The Disciple

09-05-2019, 05:20 AM

Steven Avery

09-06-2019, 01:50 AM

So, pick up your KJV, believe that Jesus is going to speak through you, and speak English to those who you desire to win for Christ. Superb advice!

diakonos

09-06-2019, 01:56 AM

So, we are all one person in Christ? I"m trying to wrap my head around that, what it would actually mean. I can see "one body" as a metaphor for a corporate unity composed of many persons. We are one is equivalent to we are united or joined together as a (composite) whole. But saying we are one person, I don't understand what that would mean. We are many persons.

I understand why many say that Jesus' "I and my Father are one" is not a declaration of unitary personhood, because whenever two people (persons) are said to be one, it is understand they are one something-other-than-person. Like one corporate entity (a corpus or body composed of more than one person, treated as a single entity). I'm not even certain Jesus was trying to say He and God were one "person", I think such a concept would have been incomprehensible at the time. Perhaps He is saying He and the Father are one being, a unity (one human, one divine)? Two people being one person would seem to be properly expressed as "the same" rather than "one", which is subject to common understanding as a corporate unity, not an ontologically personal unity (one person).

Maybe I'm just tired. My brain hurts.

This is why a church of God pastor told me that he is trinitarian and not oneness.

Steven Avery

09-06-2019, 02:40 AM

Here I want to show you how Roger Perkins is just working in the realm of parroting trinitarian error.

This is a footnote on John 10:30, which Weymouth properly translates as:

"I and the Father are one"

Ernest Hampden Cook apparently wrote the footnote.

The New Testament in Modern Speech: An Idiomatic Translation Into Everyday English from the Text of the Resultant Greek Testament (1915)
Richard Francis Weymouth (1822-1902)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZIsOAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA272

6. Are one] It is important to observe that ‘one' here is neuter, not masculine as in the similar expression in Gal. iii. 28. Our Lord here affirms that Ho and His Father, being two Persons (masculine), have and are one nature (neuter).—Ed.

See how the editor reads the word "persons" into the text, when it is nowhere to be found and it is absurdly weak interpretation.

Roger Perkins simply follows in the same trinitarian-style mode to make absurdly weak claims about "person" in whatever text he picks and chooses.

Neither Weymouth or Perkins has an iota of real support, in the verses that have the number one without an additional word to indicate body or person.

A pox on both your faux grammatical houses.

Steven Avery

09-06-2019, 02:49 AM

So Chrysostom:
"That is, we have all one form and one mould, even Christ's. What," he adds, "can be more awful than these words? He that was a Greek, or Jew, or bondman yesterday, carries about with him the form, not of an angel or archangel, but of the Lord of all, yea, displays in his own person the Christ." - Pulpit Commentary
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/3-28.htm Chrysostom seems to be the most sensible of the commentaries given in your post.

And there is absolutely nothing about the "one person" interpretative fantasy, or fixating on the very natural masculine usage (most of the nouns are masculine).

Whatever you like or not about Chrysostom, he knew his Greek!

Esaias

09-06-2019, 03:04 AM

Chrysostom seems to be the most sensible of the commentaries given in your post.

And there is absolutely nothing about the "one person" interpretative fantasy, or fixating on the very natural masculine usage (most of the nouns are masculine).

Whatever you like or not about Chrysostom, he knew his Greek!

Chrysostom earned his name quite well. One of my favorite ancient writers.

Steven Avery

09-06-2019, 06:20 AM

Here is the Chrysostom quote direct from ACCS, more and better text.

ACCS
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians
edited by Mark J. Edwards
https://books.google.com/books?id=w-dHcNNfOCcC&pg=PA49
edited by Thomas C. Oden
https://books.google.com/books?id=FctcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA51

Chrysostom
Do you see how insatiable his soul is? For having said that we have become sons of God through faith, he does not stop here but seeks out something more to say, which can make still more plain our closer unity with Christ. And having said, “You have put him on,” he is not content with this, but interpreting it he speaks of some thing more intimate than this association and says, "You are all one in Christ"—that is, you have one form, one character, that of Christ. What words could inspire more awe than these? The former Jew or slave is clothed in the form not of an angel or archangel but of the Lord himself and in himself displays Christ.
Homily on Galatians 3.28.1

Jerome and Augustine are also on the page. No one has the sense of one person.

Jerome
When one has once put on Christ and, having been sent into the flame, glows with the ardor of the Holy Spirit, it is not apparent whether he is of gold or silver. As long as the heat takes over the mass in this way there is one fiery color, and all diversity of race, condition and body is taken away by such a garment.
Homily on Galatians 3:28

Augustine
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains embedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected. For we observe in the unity of faith that there are no such distinctions. Yet within the orders of this life they persist. So we walk this path in a way that the name and doctrine of God will not be blasphemed. It is not out of fear or anger that we wish to avoid offense to others but also on account of conscience, so that we may do these things not in mere profession, as if for the eyes of men, but with a pure love toward God.
Epistle to the Galatians 28 [1B.3.28-29].10

=======================

Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ignatius
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/galatians3.html

Clement of Alexandria
https://books.google.com/books?id=xuxYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/020811.htm

For you, who believed the poetical fable which designated Minos the Cretan as the bosom friend of Zeus, will not refuse to believe that we who have become the disciples of God have received the only true wisdom; and that which the chiefs of philosophy only guessed at, the disciples of Christ have both apprehended and proclaimed. And the one whole Christ is not divided: "There is neither barbarian, nor Jew, nor Greek, neither male nor female, but a new man," transformed by God's Holy Spirit.

Ignatius to the Philadelphians - longer recension
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=ly48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA81

Now [the Scripture] says, "A righteous father educates [his children] well; his heart shall rejoice in a wise son." Masters, be gentle towards your servants, as holy Job has taught you; for there is one nature, and one family of mankind. For "in Christ there is neither bond nor free." Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers to those that command them; deacons to the presbyters, as to high-priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar [himself], to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as Christ to the Father. And thus unity is preserved throughout. Let not the widows be wanderers about, nor fond of dainties, nor gadders from house to house; but let them be like Judith, noted for her seriousness; and like Anna, eminent for her sobriety. I do not ordain these things as an apostle: for "who am I, or what is my father's house,"35 that I should pretend to be equal in honour to them? But as your "fellow-soldier,"36 I hold the position of one who [simply] admonishes you.

There is nothing in this verse that is either pro-Trinity or pro-Oneness or any other Christology. It is so sad that there is so much hot air polemic over non-issues, rather than simply picking up the wonderful AV and letting the scriptures speak to your heart.

Commentaries like the ones above can be helpful, at times the better commentaries (1500s-1700s) sparked by the Reformation era can be helpful. There is some good material in the 1800s, and lots of crapola as well. Really good, edifying material after about 1880 is the exception, few and far between