One In The Greek

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I rarely ever meet a "YAHIST" or a "sacred namer". The ones I have ran across over the years have leaned toward Twinity or Arian.

All the ones I know are One God. But more than Theology is linguistics as that pet peeve.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In years past you didnt hear much about Oneness becoming Trins. It was always the other way around. For a number of years everyone who went through my entire presentation of Oneness accepted it.

You are talking about lay people, not harden Trinitarian scholars or Trinitarian college trained ministers. Like when you hear about ex-Mormons converting, or ex-Catholics they are usually the rank and file. Not Michael Dimond, or Scott Hahn. It's rare to get 40 wives of Osama Bin Laden to convert fresh out of the cave. Mostly conversions are from your normal people who (while they may attend a Three god church) they aren't Greek scholars.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Things have really changed. I have ran into a number of Oneness who now mock it. For years I had no real interest in what other languages said. I still have very little.

I have ran into ex-Oneness, pretty much I have run into ex- everything. People are people and get in and out of things for all sorts of reasons. Nothing new.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Nonetheless it got more and more where you cannot do a study without someone trying to throw Greek into the mix or Hebrew for that matter. It seems people are very impressed by that and are quick to accept whatever the person says. I have seen it to often.

Like I previously posted, people who sperw Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Wakandian aren't scholars. Look at our own Scott Pitta, he can't get the job done because of a can of paint, sticky shelves, and a pile of dusty termite eaten books. You speak English? You were born hearing English, you came into Church most likely with a KJV, or a Good News Bible. All English, all understandable.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In my own teaching or contending sessions I have a very small perimeter of these words that are nonetheless effective to some. A Greek fellow contacted me a few years ago and told me he accepted Oneness after hearing me teach on Mark 12:29 that one actually meant one. He had been a Trin basically because everyone else was.

I do use the Concordance or Interlinear some, generally I think the KJV translators probably knew the Greek as good as most today. There are very few places in it where I think translation makes a difference. It seems to me the larger battle is over text sources.

Mike, I am in a place, where Spanish, French, and other languages are spoken. I make them all read from their own language Bibles. While it may be interesting to go into the Greek, the Spanish, and French have no need for that. Because in their language it says the exact same thing. But it is context of the chapters, and also the wholeness of the entire Bible. Noty just twisting over one word in Greek, which neither one has a clue to its etymology.

If you are dealing with sincere truth seekers, all they need is their birth language. Seriously.

[Scott Pitta]

hen in John's literature

I Jn. 5:8 agreement
Rev. 4:8 each
Rev. 15:7 one

[Scott Pitta]

hen in Gospel of John

Jn. 1:3 *not translated*
Jn. 3:27 oude hen "only"
Jn. 6:22 one
Jn. 7:21 one
Jn. 9:25 one
Jn. 10:30 one
Jn. 11:52 one
Jn. 17:11 one
Jn. 17:21 one
Jn. 17:22 one
Jn. 17:23 unity
Jn. 21:25 one

[Scott Pitta]

Which translation translates heis or hen "one person" ??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Exactly!

And any lay or professional grammarians, or translators, whether Trinity or Oneness or Other, who play this game, are Absurdists. And can be either laughed at, or marked, depending on mood and need.

The same, btw, can be said about the Hebrew echad, the counting number one. And various theories that it is a special type of one.

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

Here is an example of the arrogance and insulting manner of those pushing this ignorance, emphasis added:



Thanks for giving such a perfect example of translational ignorance and logic incompetence leading to a totally false claim!

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

Here was the ignorant response of Roger Perkins, trying to dance around, trying to add qualifications, to avoid the simple truth given by Scott above:



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

Remember, the only real "scholarship" quote we were given that says that heis is "one person" was from Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), given by Jason Weatherly in a video. And Jason had to drastically doctor the quote, it was actually phony.

Richard Perkins pushed the video, and never had the integrity to even acknowledge the quote blunder, which is right at the one minute mark. Integrity first!

Weatherly was simply wrong, and quite incomprehensible.

The supposed quote from Theayer Jason used, put on the screen, was doctored, it was not in the text. This is shoddy, bogus non-scholarship.

And it was not even implied in the text.

You now add more ignorance in your attempt to cover for Jason:

As Scott tried to point out to you, "one person" is never a legitimate translation. At best, it is very weak commentary, following the faux Trintitarian mode of "persons" insertion.

None of these verses translate as "one person".
For example:

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.

We are not "one person" in Christ Jesus.

In Jason's video, there was also the additional blunder of trying to use the earlier Amplified Version edition paraphrase gibbersish of Galatians 3:20 as if it was real translation.

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

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

Yes, I know my words are strong above. It is needed. Roger Perkins, Jason Weatherly and perhaps others (Ensley was mentioned by Roger, likely Eddie Ensley, but I have not seen his material) are a dark stain on oneness apologetics with these phony arguments trying to read in "one person" as the text of the New Testament.

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

Steven Avery

*Avery—you very clearly have some major issues, which is precisely why NO ONE that I know has ever even heard of you. The one man that I told about you and he read some of your gibberish on here said, quite simply, “He is not to be taken seriously in academics-proper” (my thoughts exactly). Although, I will add once again that I do think some of your work on I Timothy 3.16 and John 1.18 is commendable (but even much of that is simply borrowed from other writers such as Burgon, et al.).

*Let’s recap for those that are serious lest you & Scott mislead them. Earlier I posted numerous references from various grammarians stating that the masculine singular cardinal numeral “heis,” esp. when functioning predicatively and/or pronominally, denotes “one person.” All anyone has to do is scroll back up to see Robertson, Wuest, Zodhiates, BDAG, Thayer, Amplified Bible, NEB (oh, and I do have MUCH more if you need them)etc.—all of whom either outright state and/or translate this masculine adjective as “one person.” Regarding Thayer’s translation of “heis” in Galatians 3.28 as “one person,” I already explained this to you since you do not know how to read a Greek lexicon (nor even the Greek alphabet for that matter ). I even posted page numbers and numerous biblical examples from the Greek NT and the LXX.

*Typical Steven Avery, you deny these grammars and translations due to your gross ignorance of Greek grammar and textual criticism - all the while stating grossly distorted and erroneous claims about the same. You have never taken formal Greek or Hebrew, reject anything that doesn’t fit your cult-think-conspiracy gibberish...and then attempt to chide professional linguists, translators and those who HAVE had university Greek and Hebrew. This is like a shade tree mechanic attempting to “teach” NASA how to build a rocket ship . In all sincerely, you would be absolutely howled out of a classroom in a university setting (they probably would not even let you in now that I think about it).

*The funniest part of all of this is your claim about NASA “staging” the moon landing ! I only mention this because hopefully this will alert those who are reading your gibberish how unbelievably out of whack you are...and you actually SERIOUS about all this stuff. Please do us all a favor and don’t mention to people that you’re Oneness. It’s precisely this kind of stupidity that causes people to reject our message.

*So, do us all a favor and just run along so we can have meaningful and serious discussion w.out all of your silly-childish claims. Let me guess, you also believe the Name of Jesus is actually “Yeshua”...right ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Just an aside that this truth of "God was manifest in the flesh" is only for those settled on the Received Text as their pure Bible. This means especially the Authorized Version (or the Geneva, Young's or the NKJV, and the occasional Byzantine/Greek Majority Text.)

Those who mix in corruption versions (Westcott-Hort recension) or the Latin Vulgate or Aramaic primacists using the Peshitta, simply do not have this truth. Even though it is in 99%+ of our Greek manuscripts and the W-H corruption texts are a solecism.

If you are using the ESV, NIV, NAS, etc. as if they are actually Bibles, you simply can not proclaim this truth as a teaching of the word of God.

Steven

*Read it and weep folks! If ignorance is bliss some people must live in a perpetual utopia. The newer translations are actually STRONGER on the divinity of Jesus than the inferior KJV and Textus-Receptus. This statement could not be more wrong if he tried...honestly. The polar opposite it true. (Ask him how many courses he’s had in textual criticism—probably about the same amount as his “Greek” and “Hebrew” !)

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Size and bold emphasis added:

Simple question.

After this totally bogus assertion, and Roger doubling down on his blunder:

.... why would anyone dialog on grammatical issues with Roger Perkins?

And I understand that the chances of Roger's coming back to sound exposition is small. He has made this blunder his cause célèbre.

One irony is that he is using the faux Trinitarian obsession with person/persons. And then using that to make a totally absurd claim in the grammatical world.

Steven

*There’s nothing to “double down” on other than grammatical facts—that you know absolutely nothing about. Tell us Avery, how many actual hours of university Greek and textual criticism do you have under your belt:__________?

*Waiting patiently .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree, Steven. I do think Esaias is exactly right here. It does seem to me that all the Oneness books on Christology I have read are overreactions to Trinitarianism and therefore are distortions. I have often wondered what a Oneness Christology might look like that simply ignored Trinitarianism. Would we have, for example, ever described Jesus as having a dual nature if Chalcedon wasn't looming in the background?

Earlier Esaias felt it was best just to suggest that I simply didn't understand the various ways I've heard Oneness Christology explained, but now he has correctly noted that "most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians " and ends up overemphasizing things and thus downplaying other things. So, perhaps I have actually understood what I've read and heard.

For example, to explain the self-awareness of a dual-natured being like Jesus and how he acted and spoke, Bernard says that sometimes Jesus spoke or acted from his divine self-consciousness and sometimes from his human self-consciousness. Or, "as a man" he said or did this, but "as God" he said or did this. Nothing in the Gospels suggests this is how Jesus experienced reality or what his self-awareness was like.

Jesus describes it as a man being in relationship with the Father. He always seems to have acted and spoken from the perspective of being the Son of God in relationship with the Father.
He was sent to do the Father's will.
The Father has given all things into his hands.
He can do nothing but what he sees the Father do.
The Father has given him authority.
He can do nothing on his own but he judges as he hears from God.
He spoke as the Father taught him.
He had heard and seen the Father.
The Father is greater than the Son.
He calls the Father and himself "we" and likens them to two witnesses.
He calls the Father his God.
And on and on.

I have yet to read a book on Oneness, and I've read most of the ones available through the Pentecostal Publishing House, that actually takes all this into account without downplaying it. The emphasis is always that he is the Father, but never on what the NT emphasizes: he is the Son. "Who do men say that I am?" "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

I have yet, for example, to hear anyone pray to the Father and speak of Jesus in the third person as the early church felt comfortable doing (Acts 4).
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” If I got up and prayed about the Father's holy servant Jesus, there would be problems.

In Psalm 2 from which the early believers quote, it goes onto say
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

In Scripture, Jesus describes him and the Father as "We/Us", the Father talks about "my king", early believers speak of Jesus in the third person to the Father and quote from a passage where the Father and Son are "they/their." I have never heard Oneness people speak this way or read anything that takes all this into account

I have yet to read a Oneness Christology that sounds like the Gospels in describing Jesus. Oneness Christology seems to have always been reactionary to Trinitarianism and therefore seems unbalanced.

*Almost daily I thank God the work of His Son. I often pray like this inasmuch as it’s simply biblical language as you duly note. But, I also understand the biblical-ontological distinctions going on when I use such language. Just sayin’.

[Michael The Disciple]

rdp said to Steve

*So, do us all a favor and just run along so we can have meaningful and serious discussion w.out all of your silly-childish claims. Let me guess, you also believe the Name of Jesus is actually “Yeshua”...right ?

What is the Hebrew name for Jesus?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Due to being in the middle of a painting project, my bookshelves have been moved and my books are in a pile. Not sure where my hardbound Greek concordance is.

So I am using an online reference. Not something I ever do. Not sure if it is accurate.

Heis in John's literature came up.

Rev. 5:5 one
Rev. 7:13 one
Rev. 17:1 one
Rev. 17:10 one
Rev. 18:21 *not translated*
Rev. 21:9 one
Rev. 21:21 each

Notice heis is not translated "one person" not at least in Revelation.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

heis in Gospel of John

Jn. 1:40 one
Jn. 6:8 *not translated*
Jn. 6:70 one
Jn. 7:50 one
Jn. 8:9
Jn. 10:16 one
Jn. 11:49 one
Jn. 11:50 one
Jn. 12:2 *not translated*
Jn. 12:4 one
Jn. 13:21 one
Jn. 13:23 one
Jn. 18:22 one
Jn. 18:26 one
Jn. 19:34 one
Jn. 20:24 one

*Shall I repost the translations that DO render “heis” as “one person?” Cf., e.g., NEB, Amplified Bible, Thayer, etc., etc. Now what Scott? I have already explained to you that every nuance, gender, mood, tense, etc. cannot all be translated inasmuch as we would have multiple books and not just one book called “The Bible.” I am honestly surprised at your claims on this thread. If I were a betting man I would wager that you took your Greek classes a very long time ago...although, these truisms were accurate back then also. Very odd...but you plainly don’t know the Greek you purport to know.