Search results

Phil 3:20... you need to understand the concept of "citizenship" in the ancient world, especially Roman citizenship. E.g. Roman citizenship was not to return to Rome (don't think of American citizenship the same way) but extend Rome to the world, for that is the glory of Rome (so it was...

Here's a novel thought... what about words that have a wide semantic range. Like one word (say chesed?) has a lot of meanings that is not so easy to pin down to a simple gloss definition such as "steadfast love".

Just kidding on the racism thing. But give it a try, Van. Test out your word study chops w/ chesed or some really difficult word like that.

At times. For example, I can't recall a place where agapaw is used to illustrate a physical act of love such as a kiss. But this is common for philew (see the accounts of Judas kissing Jesus).

I dare not try to define love so simply in any manner. Choice... emotion/feeling... action... ? it is a term that means so much and yet so much of it is understood unconsciously w/out the help of definitions. I would simply muddy what is inherently clear.

I grant you the exact synonyms point. But there is so much overlap between the two words in question, that the nuances seem irrelevant, even in the same context of one another. As you know, the way of all languages is simplification. That applies to word meanings as well. These words, nuanced...

I don't know that I have a good answer for that. But go the other direction: Is knowledge of the Trinity a requirement for salvation, for correct understanding of the gospel? If so, most children are not saved like many claim.

No... he really compared his theology to that of a 9 year old's. I was just asking to be sure.

No... new creation is our destiny. Heaven is for a bodiless existence. God intended me to have a body, a resurrected one. This is why I accuse of a neo-platonic influence in western christian theology.

How many here have read Carson's Exegetical Fallacies? It is one of the most important books on exegesis. It is short and very helpful. His section on Word studies and the root fallacy should be read and re-read by all. Give it a shot, Van. It is pretty cheap. He discusses specifically John...

Or at least synonymous. In other words, their meanings have a lot of overlap and not much should be read between them.

Is there any synchronic morphological reason to believe that in the first century CE, there was a distinction between the 2 words? Let me just quote Dr. Black on this as it sheds light on this issue:

Years of godly, quality research. Yes... the 3 denials correspond to the 3 questions. That is why it was on the 3rd question that Peter got upset, as the text makes clear. And if you refuse to use commentaries but rely solely on lexicons and etymologies, then there is a bigger issue at work...

In your example, the context determines. I think the same would apply to John 21 as well as how the words are used through the rest of John. And it seems most likely that they are used synonymously. The emphasis is on the 3 questions to link w/ the 3 denials.

So you're saying your theology is on par w/ a 9 year old? I stopped caring about heaven a while ago. I desire new creation and resurrection.

Not necessarily. The Trinity is a good example of being a hallmark of Christian theology but not a requirement of the gospel.

Could preaching from God's word be part of Paul's admonition? Could this also include a simple word of encouragement to someone or a bit of wisdom? Does this have to mean direct revelation from God?

The passage doesn't say "again". Read a similar statement in Genesis this morning: Gen 37:35 All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. Likely this is...

By fundamentals, do you mean what is fundamental for salvation (e.g. Jesus is Lord) or fundamental to Christianity in contradistinction to other religions (e.g. Trinity)?

Yep... that "Sloppy Agape" article I linked bears that out quite plainly. Go here.