Wednesday, December 23, 2015

"Merry Christmas, pieces of s***!"

Hey all,

I'm guessing that title got you? Well, those aren't my words. Our very first podcast was on swearing and the building up of the body through our language. In it, we addressed BadChristian podcast's article on why swearing isn't against the Biblical mandate. They come from the perspective that words can shift meaning, and therefore there can't be words that are universally "wrong." We gave some good counter arguments. Some people have posted our podcast on their website and tweeted it to them asking for a response. We haven't heard from them. 

Today I read this. 



Now here's what gets me. I've heard people making the arguments found on their blog for a real long time. Those who make the arguments always seem to bring up the idea that swear words don't necessarily tear people down. Then I read stuff or hear stuff like this out of those same people. 

The kicker here is that their tweet completely undermines their article. The article uses this specific word and tries to point out that the "sh" word means the same thing as "crap." But if we replace one with the other, "Merry Christmas, pieces of crap," does that help at all? Does that make it less offensive? Is this the picture Christians are to have of Gabriel saying that he brings glad tidings of great joy?

The thing here is the demonstration of inconsistency in the application of what they're teaching. The response? Don't look to BadChristian for Spiritual guidance and growth. As a matter of fact,  is listening to them at all beneficial? That's not for me to decide. However, being that our podcast is not strictly apologetics or debating, but is trying to steer towards growth and maturity through sound theology and exegesis, I do want to make an analogy here. 

A couple weeks ago I was doing some Christmas shopping. I wandered into the Christian bookstore and was appalled at the selection I found there. Heresy and heretics line the shelves, intermingled with some really good and trustworthy authors. The analogy here is that when you follow people like this, who call themselves Christians, advertise their Christianity, but look like the world, and seemingly have no concern for the growth and maturity of their listeners- it's just like walking into the bookstore. You need to keep your guard up, because it's always the most dangerous when you feel the most comfortable with dropping your guard. I fear for those who drop their guard with BadChristian and come to think that BC represents the face of mature Christianity. 


God Bless and Merry Christmas,

Mike Senders

Monday, December 21, 2015

The $1M Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Hey all,

So after going through the podcast on John 1:1, I realized we missed (or maybe only partially answered) one gaping hole in the Jehovah's Witness'argument in John 1:1c. 
 
It goes like this:

Argument: Because the article is missing before θεός in 1:1c, the English should be rendered "a god."

$1M question: Does adding the article make 1:1c Trinitarian?

Answer: Definitively no. 



John 1:1c-  καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

As we argued in our podcast episode, in a statement of equality, there is no direct object. By placing the article before λόγος (logos- Word), λόγος then becomes the subject of the sentence. So, if we place the article before θεὸς (theos- God), like-

καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

What happens is that you've now forced both nouns to act as subjects by making both definite, and therefore interchangeable. So, John was pretty clever. What he did was safeguard against a Modalistic reading. In Modalism, God the Father is the same Person as Jesus. So in Trinitarian terms, they are "One Person, One Being, two manifestations." This isn't Trinitarianism, and certainly isn't biblical.  

So, the facile argument made by Jehovah's Witnesses can't be solved by simply following what they say should be done. Which means the argument falls on its face. Following the rest of our arguments through, the only answer for understanding John's prologue properly is to read it in a Trinitarian manner. 



"Holy, Holy, Holy, merciful and mighty!
God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!"



God bless,

Mike Senders

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Greek learning materials

Hey all,


In our last podcast we mentioned some great resources for learning Biblical Greek, so here are the links to find he items we mentioned. 


http://www.dts.edu/itunesu/
The first resource we want to mention is Dallas Theological Seminary's Greek I and II courses at iTunes University. DTS has a wonderful selection of classes to choose from aside from Greek. The files are in video format, and are direct recordings of actual classroom lectures. Course requirements and material lists are provided so you even have the opportunity to follow homework assignments on your own if you wish. 


http://www.billmounce.com
The second, and primary resource is William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek and the accompanying workbook. This is a classroom text that is easy to read and understand and along with the workbook provides practice exercises in translation. DTS, mentioned above, uses Mounce for their text and together the two work well together because the instructor makes comments about Mounce's text for further helpful clarification. Mounce also has other resources available such as a DVD set, flash cards, and charts to help with learning. 


http://www.dailydoseofgreek.com
The next helpful resource is more for those who already know some Greek and need a primer to help stay in practice. Daily dose has short videos on individual verses of scripture going word by word through the Greek to help with parsing and syntax. 



Well there ya have it, some helpful resources for learning and keeping up with Greek studies. Make use of resources, more knowledge and understanding of our scriptures always helps. 


God bless,

Mike Senders



Thursday, December 10, 2015

That Thing About Person vs. Being...

Sooooo.... on the last podcast we discussed a bit of Trinitarianism. The whole Person vs. Being thing that confuses the heck out of everyone and their brother. Plus, like we mentioned, if you're going to be a heretic, you're probably going to fall on this issue. So, we'd like to help you out a little.

What is Being? Being has to do with existence. It's something's "is-ness." Tables have being. So do cows, christmas trees, telephone poles, dogs, squirrels, and hygrometers (I like random. Random is fun.). So, being has nothing to do with Person. Something can have being without being a Person. Ideas, however, do not have being. Only "things" have being. So computer programs, the theory of relativity, or temperature (another random list) do not have being. Once again, Being has to do with existence, the state of "be-ing" (makes sense).

Person is a little more complex. Being a Person does not necessitate humanity, but it is does require some things that animals do not possess. Will, thought, power, determination, etc., are all requirements of person. So, animals don't qualify because they don't have a will. If you disagree, watch a few episodes of Cesar Milan. They run on instinct, top to bottom- and if you know how instinct operates, you can control them (you whisper to them).

So now that we've got some simple, working definitions, let's look at how to apply them in regards to common misunderstandings regarding the Trinity. I'm going to try my darnedest to exhaust every possible combination.

One person, no being- This isn't possible. Maybe an AI but without a body. Crazy sci-fi stuff.

One being, no person- This would be something like a table. It exists, but is not a person.

One being, one person- This is what we call Unitarianism. Human beings are Unitarian. We possess one existence, shared only by one person. Theologically, Arians, Unitarian Universalists, Modalistic Monarchians, and Muslims are all Unitarians.

One being, one person, split between multiple persons- Schizophrenia. This is where you have multiple minds within one mind. Theologically, this is represented by Modalism. In Modalism, God is One Being, One Person, but he manifests himself in three different ways- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since this is the case, a Modalist can say de facto that Jesus is the Father. They're the same Person. This is also similar to, but not exactly, like the analogy of, "I'm a father, a son, and a brother, but only one person." That has to do with different roles played at different times.

Multiple beings, one person- Hive mentality. This would be something like bees or ants. They all (sorta) share the same mind, information is passed between all beings to reach a sort of equilibrium, but they don't share their existence.

One being, one person divided into multiple parts- Partialism. This would be like the Greek myth of Cerberus. In this, three separate persons divide the one person, and consciousness is not shared. This is different than schizophrenia described above in that the multiple parts all operate simultaneously without reference to each other. In schizophrenia, only one person manifests itself at a time, and therefore the being is subsumed by only a single person in turn. Partialism is like Cerberus in that there is one being, one person and the multiple persons sharing that person are like the multiple, living heads on Cerberus.

Then, finally, there's Trinitarianism. This is One Being, Three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal Persons. The Persons are not confused, intermingled, shared, or divisible. Since their Being is shared, the act of One Person can be attributed to all three, though responsibility terminates only on one member. They also are One in will, determination, and purpose via shared Being; however, distinction in Person allows for a distinction in role and/or participation. Shared Being and distinction in Person also allows for perfect relationship. A shared Being means that the multiple Persons can never be at odds with one another, yet a distinction in Person means that, well, they're not the same Person and so therefore can experience one another. Mind boggling.


Well, there you have it. Hope that helps a bit. Trinitarianism is a confusing subject, and its no surprise that so many people have a hard time with it. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to post in the comments section! If you happened to bump into this article on accident, follow the links on this page to listen in to our podcast!

God bless,

Mike Senders

PDF Presentation for John 1:1

Hi all!

Our next podcast which will be released in the next few days will be a little content heavy. We'll be discussing John 1:1 and the issues surrounding the Jehovah's Witness' translation of 1:1c as "a god," which will mean that we're going to have to get into the Greek. To help with that, we're providing a visual with this one so you can follow along with if you want. You can find a downloadable .pdf presentation of the material here: https://www.academia.edu/17325446/Primer_on_Jn_1_1. We hope you enjoy the podcast, and the presentation. As always, feel free to ask questions or leave comments in the responses.

God Bless,

Mike Senders

Friday, November 27, 2015

Resources for Episode 1

Here's some lexical resources for the first episode, in case people want to look at the available data on the terms we discussed.

Eph 5:4 "filthy language" (aischrotes)-

Mounce Greek Dictionary:
G157 | S G151   αἰσχρότης   aischrotēs   1x obscenity, indecency

Strong's Greek:
αἰσχρότης aischrotes, ahee-skhrot´-ace; from 150; shamefulness, i.e. obscenity: — filthiness.

Thayer:
αἰσχρότης; aischrotēs, aischrotētos, hē, baseness, dishonor: Eph. 5:4 (A.V. filthiness). (Plato, Gorgias 525 a.)

Louw & Nida:
ἀσχημονέω; ἀσχημοσύνηa, ης f; αἰσχύνηc, ης f; αἰσχρότης, ητος f: to act in defiance of social and moral standards, with resulting disgrace, embarrassment, and shame — ‘to act shamefully, indecent behavior, shameful deed.’
ἀσχημονέω: ἡ ἀγάπη … οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ, οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς ‘love … never behaves shamefully and does not seek its own interests’ 1Cor 13:4-5.
ἀσχημοσύνηa: ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι ‘men do shameful deeds with each other’ Ro 1:27.
αἰσχύνηc: κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας ‘they are like wild waves of the sea with their shameful deeds showing up like foam’ Jd 13.
αἰσχρότης: αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία, ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν ‘indecent behavior, foolish and dirty talk are not fitting for you’ Eph 5:4.
Behavior involving disgrace, embarrassment, and shame is often expressed in an idiomatic manner, for example, ‘to bury one’s face,’ ‘to hide one’s eyes,’ or ‘to feel stabbed by people’s eyes.’ Since shame is seemingly a universal type of feeling, there is usually no difficulty involved in obtaining a satisfactory equivalent.

BDAG:
αἰσχρότης, ητος, ἡ (range of sense like αἰσχρός: Pla., Gorg. 525a; Artem. 4, 2 p. 204, 8) behavior that flouts social and moral standards, shamefulness, obscenity, abstr. for concr.= αἰσχρολογία (q.v.) Eph 5:4 (KKuhn, NTS 7, ’61, 339 [Qumran]).—TW.

TDNT:
αἰσχύνω aischýnō [to be ashamed], ἐπαισχύνω epaischýnō [to be ashamed], καταισχύνω kataischýnō [to put to shame], αἰσχύνη aischýnē [shame], αἰσχρός aischrós [shameful], αἰσχρότης aischrótēs [shame]

A. The Linguistic Usage in the LXX. Unlike the aidṓs group, this group was in common use and is thus often found in the LXX. The sense is “to shame,” “put to

{p. 30}

shame” (God mostly as subject), “be shamed or ashamed” (personally rather than publicly). The main point of aischýnē is not “feeling of shame” but “disgrace,” i.e., the shame brought by divine judgment, though sometimes with a stress on “being ashamed.”

B. The NT Usage. The same meanings are found here: “to shame” (1 Cor. 11:4-5), “to bring to shame” (1 Cor. 1:27), “to be ashamed” (Lk. 16:3), almost “disillusioned” (Phil. 1:20). aischýnē means “disgrace” (Heb. 12:2; Jude 13), with a play on the sexual sense in Rev. 3:18. aischrós means “what is disgraceful” (1 Cor. 11:6; Eph. 5:12; Tit. 1:11). aischrótēs occurs only in Eph. 5:4 where it refers to “shameful talk.”


Col 3:8 "abusive speech" (aischrologia)

Mounce Greek Dictionary:
αἰσχρολογία   aischrologia   1x vile or obscene language, foul talk

Strong's Greek:
αἰσχρολογία aischrologia, ahee-skhrol-og-ee´-ah; from 150 and 3056; vile conversation: — filthy communication.

Thayer:
αἰσχρολογία; aischrologia, aischrologias, hē (from aischrologos, and this from aischros and legō), foul speaking (Tertullian turpiloquium), low and obscene speech, (R.V. shameful speaking): Col. 3:8; (Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius) (Cf. Lightfoot at the passage; Trench, sec. xxxiv.)

Louw & Nida:
αἰσχρολογία, ας f: obscene, shameful speech involving culturally disapproved themes — ‘vulgar speech, obscene speech, dirty talk.’ ἀπόθεσθε … βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν ‘get rid of … slander and dirty talk that ever came from your lips’ Col 3:8.

BDAG:
αἰσχρολογία, ας, ἡ (X. et al.; Polyb., Diod. S., Plut., Epict.; POxy 410, 77) speech of a kind that is generally considered in poor taste,   obscene speech, dirty talk (Aristot., EN 4, 8 [1128a], contrasts the preference for obscenity in older drama with the more refined taste of later times and argues that αἰ., obscenity, can be expected from those of servile nature but not from a cultured gentleman. Clem. Al., Paed. 2, 6, 52 αἰ. εἰκότως ἂν καλοῖτο ἡ περὶ τῶν τῆς κακίας ἔργων λογοποιία, οἷον τὸ περὶ μοιχείας διαλέγεσθαι ἢ παιδεραστίας = αἰ. might properly be defined as story-telling involving such unseemly deeds as adultery or pederasty. αἰσχρός=obscene: Ps.-Demetr. Eloc. 151). Obscene expressions would also be used to flavor derogatory remarks (s. Aristot. above); hence the rendering scurrilous talk (Polyb. 8, 11, 8; 31, 6, 4; BGU 909, 11f ) is pertinent Col 3:8, esp. since βλασφημία (=‘defamation’, s. βλ. a) immediately precedes. The gener. sense dirty talk fits D 5:1, which could apply to ribald stories as well as scurrilous talk.—AWikenhauser, BZ 8, 1910, 270. DELG s.v. αἶσχος. M-M. Sv.

Here is Aristotle's piece we mentioned:

Those then who go to excess in ridicule are thought to be buffoons and vulgar fellows, who itch to have their joke at all costs, and are more concerned to raise a laugh than to keep within the bounds of decorum and avoid giving pain to the object of their raillery. Those on the other hand who never by any chance say anything funny themselves and take offence at those who do, are considered boorish and morose. Those who jest with good taste are called witty1 or versatile—that is to say, full of good turns; for such sallies seem to spring from the character, and we judge men's characters, like their bodies, by their movements. [4] But as matter for ridicule is always ready to hand, and as most men are only too fond of fun and raillery, even buffoons are called witty and pass for clever fellows; though it is clear from what has been said that Wit is different, and widely different, from Buffoonery. [5] The middle disposition is further characterized by the quality of tact, the possessor of which will say, and allow to be said to him, only the sort of things that are suitable to a virtuous man and a gentleman: since there is a certain propriety in what such a man will say and hear in jest, and the jesting of a gentleman differs from that of a person of servile nature, as does that of an educated from that of an uneducated man. [6] The difference may be seen by comparing the old and the modern comedies; the earlier dramatists found their fun in obscenity, the moderns prefer innuendo, which marks a great advance in decorum. [7] Can we then define proper raillery by saying that its jests are never unbecoming to gentlemen, or that it avoids giving pain or indeed actually gives pleasure to its object? Or is it impossible to define anything so elusive? for tastes differ as to what is offensive and what amusing. [8] Whatever rule we lay down, the same will apply to the things that a man should allow to be said to him, since we feel that deeds which a man permits to be ascribed to him he would not stop at actually doing. [9] Hence a man will draw the line at some jokes; for raillery is a sort of vilification, and some forms of vilification are forbidden by law; perhaps some forms of raillery ought to be prohibited also. [10] The cultivated gentleman will therefore regulate his wit, and will be as it were a law to himself.
Such then is the middle character, whether he be called ‘tactful’ or ‘witty.’ The buffoon is one who cannot resist a joke; he will not keep his tongue off himself or anyone else, if he can raise a laugh, and will say things which a man of refinement would never say, and some of which he would not even allow to be said to him. The boor is of no use in playful conversation: he contributes nothing and takes offence at everything; [11] yet relaxation and amusement seem to be a necessary element in life. [12]
(Found at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1128a)



Hope this is a help for you all, and as always, God Bless.

Mike Senders

Episode 2- Homosexuality Chart

In our second installment, Joel and I review a chart that had been making the rounds on social media that tried (in vain) to debunk some arguments Christians make about the sinfulness of homosexuality. The chart in particular is below. Hope you enjoy the review, and look forward to part 2! As always, feel free to ask questions or leave comments in the comments below!

In Christ,

Mike Senders


Thursday, November 26, 2015

Episode 1- Foul Language

So we finally recorded our first podcast after talking about it for a long time! In this first episode, we tackle the issue of Christians and the intentional use of profanity. In particular, we review an article by the guys over at BadChristian making a case for swearing. Listen to our first episode over at Soundcloud and as always feel free to leave any questions or comments below.

God Bless!

-Mike Senders

Our first post!

Welcome the Pressing On! Podcast Blog. Here we'll be posting links to our podcasts each time a new one comes out. We'll also be posting articles and resources related to the podcast and any other relevant materials. Stay tuned! Be sure to also follow us on Twitter @PressingOnPcast and join our Facebook group at www.facebook.com/groups/pressingonpodcast. Stay tuned!