Antedating comments htm rat dating alex

Rated 3.87/5 based on 829 customer reviews

This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Jd 5 P(72)." Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus and Hebrews 1:8-9. "But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeo,j in many pass.: qeo.j VIhsou/j Cristo,j ITr 7:1; Cristo.j qeo,j ISm 10:1. He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint.Notice that the original NWT translates the Greek as an adverb, not a noun. o` qeo.j h`mw/n IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to. However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. Be Duhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr.

antedating comments htm-80

antedating comments htm-76

antedating comments htm-27

antedating comments htm-11

Also, contrary to your assertion, BDAG often fails to reflect "the latest Greek scholarship." Case in point: your quotation of BDAG. Does the author mean treating Christ as a second God equal in status to the Father? If that is what he meant, I would agree with his statement but would point out that it doesn't challenge the orthodox position. Unfortunately, it appears that the author(s) of this entry have the first meaning in mind (see below), which shows they are simply confused. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Likewise, the claim that designating Christ as QEOS in Romans 9:5 would contradict 1 Corinthians -28 is unsupported by any argument and theologically prejudicial. The LOGOS is called QEOS in a context where there do not yet exist any physical beings to which he might have appeared as representing God (the usual spin based on Exodus 7:1). Finally, Be Duhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." Dr. Be Duhn's views would require interaction with Harris' thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris' comments regarding "the Word was divine," p. Be Duhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels.

23)."The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos.

What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does.

When Jehovah's Witnesses produce scholars that support the NWT, we must first establish that the scholar is, indeed, a recognized expert in the field of Biblical Languages, and that he or she has been quoted accurately.

When given careful consideration, many of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses do not actually constitute a sound argument from authority.

Leave a Reply