Showing posts with label Exegesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exegesis. Show all posts

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Some more materials

Hi all-

So it's been a while since we had a podcast posted, been a bit busy, and we go over that in the latest episode. Also, I've been posted recordings of my Sunday school class and much to my chagrin, I lost the audio to class three. So, there's been a bit of a layoff but we're back now. 

In the latest episode, we mention some resources that we're using for reference, and here they are. 

First is my paper, which is the subject of the discussion:

https://www.academia.edu/10694798/πᾶς_ὁ_in_John_3_16_as_Proof_of_Particular_Redemption

Here's the James White video on John 3:16:


Here's the funny but informative "Arminian boot camp" video:


And the final link is to Gundry's paper on John 3:16 (requires free registration to read)-


Well that should do it. Hope this all is a blessing to you. 

In Him,

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

Thursday, December 10, 2015

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