One In The Greek

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

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

*Ummm, Scott, for the third time now, that would be The Amplified Bible, NEB, Thayer (who WAS a translator), ASV, ERV, etc. Let me guess, all of these professional linguists just happened to pull this out of their hat with NOTHING in the Greek text informing their independent conclusions...right? Not to mention the numerous lexical quotes and biblical examples already provided in the thread. Quit being so silly Scott, you’re smarter than that (or so I thought).

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What is the Hebrew name for Jesus?

*”Yehoshua” - which later contracted to the shorter form “Yeshua.” Very similar to OT Joshua.

*On another note, might just be easier to dialogue about these types of matter via email (just too many unnecessary [& mind boggling] “distractions” in here). I have tons of word-documents I can send you, replete w. lexical and grammatical quotations if interested. Can PM me (might take me a few days to respond since I don’t usually check in on here...for obvious reasons). Pretty much done w. this thread. Just the normative experience on AFF.

*God bless.

[Esaias]

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.

1. I was saying you have been misunderstanding Oneness Christologies, then pointed out (in my post to brother Avery) the likely reason why people misunderstand them - because of presentation, in a large measure.

2. Brother Bernard's theology in his works (that I have read) don't really get as indepth as he perhaps could have. They also suffer from the common "as man He did X, as God He did Y" which I think is both an oversimplification and in fact misleading to a certain extent.

3. I usually pray "Father, ... in the name of Jesus" or some such. I also pray "Jesus, ..." I have sought to pray as Biblically as possible as long as I've been a Christian (over a quarter of a century now!) yet I'm as "Oneness" as it gets. Most of the brethren I've known over the years pray similarly.

4. I acknowledge there are few oneness pentecostal books on theology or doctrine worth reading. But then again, I think the same about trinitarian works, except there's exponentially more volume on the trinitarian side.

5. Rather than trying to figure out Bernard or Sabin or whoever, I worry about figuring out the Bible. And it begins very simply, like this:

The Bible gives certain parameters - there is one God, God is One, He is Spirit. He was manifested in flesh, the Word which was God became flesh, this is the Son of God Jesus Christ. Jesus is a man, Jesus is our God. The parameters are One God, Jesus is a man, Jesus is God. So Jesus is that One God existing as a human being, a man.

We can speculate about the metaphysics, and as long as we don't cross any of the Bible's parameters (contradicting it's plain statements) we'll prolly be fine. We get into trouble when our speculations lead to conclusions or results that contradict the Bible's statements. That's when we have to revise our thinking and bring it back in line with Scripture.

We also need to keep in mind this is the great mystery of the faith, as Paul called it, so any explanations we offer are bound to contain error or be misunderstood unless we just stick with the Bible's declarations. It's a great mystery, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a super complex theological philosophical conundrum, as trinitarians would like to believe about their position.

[Scott Pitta]

I actually had to look up the New English Bible. That is a new one for me. Thayer is outdated and the Amplified Bible is a paraphrase.

So neither the committee that produced the KJV or the NIV ever translated hen or heis as "one person". Imagine that.

To spare everyone the mindless rhetoric, of which I am sometimes guilty, I will only say in passing that the majority of English translations do not render heis or hen as "one person".

There are over 50 English translations of the NT. Of that group, a handful translations translate hies or hen as "one person". The Amplified Bible does it once. Not sure how often it is translated that way in the NEB. I could not find the phrase "one person" in the ASV. I did not find a searchable ESV.

Heis, no matter which spelling, means "one" not only in John's literature, but in all the literature of the NT.

I sometimes suspect posters spend more time reading the rules than they do actually translating. Yes, I still grab the analytical lexicon when I get stuck, but I still prefer to read or try to read my Greek NT just for fun. I much prefer translating that debating the rules.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I actually had to look up the New English Bible. That is a new one for me. Thayer is outdated and the Amplified Bible is a paraphrase.

So neither the committee that produced the KJV or the NIV ever translated hen or heis as "one person". Imagine that.

*Ummm, okay, Scott, if you say so. So now you’ll only accept the KJV & NIV (BTW, your assertion above is flatly false, the NIV does render heis as “one man” in the link below) ??? You can’t be serious. I could sit here until tomorrow night posting example after example after example in both the LXX & NT demonstrating that heis is consistently used - and even switched to (e.g., Romans 12.5) - when referencing single individuals/persons....but, since this is AFF, it would prove to be an absolute waste of time...as it always is.

*Here, maybe this one last example will help you see that the masculine singular heis demands “one person” when referring to personal beings (really have no clue why I’m doing this for the umpteenth time):

https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/33-24.htm

*Yep, you guessed it, another example of heis “translated” as “one man/person.” BTW, your repeated appeal to the choices of translators blows up in your face when we post numerous translations that *DO* consistently render heis as “one person” (and I have explained the reasons for this 3 times now). What do you do when we demonstrate this? You go into Avery-mode and demand that the KJV use this rendering before you will accept it—thus betraying your bias masquerading as “exegesis.” Maybe you & Avery should give us all an “accurate translation”—I’m sure Avery will demand the “inspired” Elizabethan language if the 1600’s though .

*Carry on Scott—back to the real world for me.

[Scott Pitta]

Romans 12:5 ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ

We are one body in Christ.

Hen is translated "one" in this verse.

hen soma is translated "one body" as a phrase.

Romans 12:5(NIV) does not translated hen as "one body".

[Scott Pitta]

I used the NIV and the KJV as examples of committees, distanced by time, that come to the same conclusion. It would have been just as easy to use many other translations.

I personally do not have a favorite translation. But I do have a personal preference for papri 45.

My point in providing the raw data was to demonstrate how heis/hen is translated in 2 commonly used committee translations.

I much prefer raw data over rhetoric.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Romans 12:5 ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ

We are one body in Christ.

Hen is translated "one" in this verse.

hen soma is translated "one body" as a phrase.

Romans 12:5(NIV) does not translated hen as "one body".

*Scott, can you honestly not see how the NT uses the neuter hen when describing “many,” but then, in the very next clause uses the masculine singular “heis” when describing “individual” believers? I honestly don’t know how else to explain this to you at this point. Here, maybe this commentary will help you see what I’m attempting to show you.

**Galatians 3.28:

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

*Did you not read the quotes by Robertson at John 10.30? You can also see Ravi Zacharias and tons of other exegetes who affirm the force of the masculine. This is simply elementary Greek and I’m honestly stunned that y’all continue to reject all of these grammars and linguists (my conscience would NEVER let me do that).

**Okay, y’all can honestly just have the last word. It’s blatantly apparent I’ve once again wasted my time on AFF. My blog is replete w. quotation after quotation after quotation regarding the force of the masculine singular (3-3) adjective for the sincere seeker. My signature line has been validated yet for the umpteenth time.

*God bless anyway.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What is the Hebrew name for Jesus?

Evidently Ἰησοῦς since your NEW TESTAMENT records His name that way.
This is what blows my mind, you start threads searching for answers concerning Greek definition of words. Yet, obviously believe that the New Testament was oringinally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore really putting you into a tail spin. What is His name in Hebrew? What is my name in Hebrew? Do you understand? Do you understand that we have zero manuscripts of the New Testament books having His name in Hebrew or Aramaic? Furthermore the New Testament writers didn’t give a hoot about recording God as YAH, or YHVH?
His name is recorded as Ἰησοῦς, not Yahshua, Yeshua, Yehoshua, Yahvahoshua, or the many word jumbles the Yahwists, Sacred Namers, and Hebrewphiles come up with. You speak Hebrew Mike? Do you do any day to day business in Hebrew? Do you kick it with your bros spouting Hebrew? No, you as I speak English. Therefore we call Him JESUS! For 2,000 years Christendom in all its flavor referred to Him as Ἰησοῦς/Jesus. But only in a blip of time we have Hebrewphiles wanting to call Him a name He may of NEVER been called by His mother. Think about that. Honestly think about a family who fled to Alexandria Egypt where the whole Judean community spoke Greek, and all had Hebrew names transliterated into Greek. Phillip isn’t a Hebrew name, it’s Greek. Nicodemus isn’t a Hebrew name, it doesn’t even mean anything in Hebrew, because it is Greek. These people were Hellenized through their many years under occupation of the nations. Mainly Greek speakers. What’s His name in Hebrew? Mike, when you find the parchment in Hebrew let us know. Until then His name is only Jesus.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Scott, can you honestly not see how the NT uses the neuter hen when describing “many,” but then, in the very next clause uses the masculine singular “heis” when describing “individual” believers? I honestly don’t know how else to explain this to you at this point. Here, maybe this commentary will help you see what I’m attempting to show you.

**Galatians 3.28:

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

*Did you not read the quotes by Robertson at John 10.30? You can also see Ravi Zacharias and tons of other exegetes who affirm the force of the masculine. This is simply elementary Greek and I’m honestly stunned that y’all continue to reject all of these grammars and linguists (my conscience would NEVER let me do that).

**Okay, y’all can honestly just have the last word. It’s blatantly apparent I’ve once again wasted my time on AFF. My blog is replete w. quotation after quotation after quotation regarding the force of the masculine singular (3-3) adjective for the sincere seeker. My signature line has been validated yet for the umpteenth time.

*God bless anyway.

What’s the address to your blog elder?