One In The Greek

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

*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]

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]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

Good advice Dom.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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]

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.co...alatians3.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