Hair and Nature?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I won't use Strongs. Strongs is outdated. It's mostly a concordance not a comprehensive lexicon and it really only gives a list of how words are translated in the KJV.

Also it tends to lump everything under one heading. For example the Greek word for one. There are three genders and the gender can affect the meaning or use but Strongs does not really tell you that. It lumps them all under the masculine Heis. So people wrongly think every greek word is Heis for One

I remember this conversation. I don't see Strong's as a useless tool at all. After all the lengthy pontificating, Strong's usually, IMO, nutshells with the same information.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=225

Quote from RPD;
Prax, while it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.

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

The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:

http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm

As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.

The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.

However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).


Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

Just some random musings...........