Joseph Henry Thayer

[SavedByGrace]

Forgot to put in this link:
How Did the Puritans Become Unitarians? – Shameless Popery

Thanks for sharing very useful

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps you should not disregard the evidence that you have already heard, like from Logos1560 post number #24 from your last thread.2 Corinthians 3 and The Deity of The Holy Spirit

Also, regarding the deity of Christ, the following comments seem to be the clincher:
p. 260 -- "He [Thayer] writes to a pastor desirous of reading up on the deity of Christ: 'But in preparing to present from the pulpit any doctrine of the truth of which I was thoroughly convinced (like the present doctrine) I have usually found myself most helped by reading the ablest books on the other side. By doing this, one not only best discovers what the actual difficulties of an unbeliever are, but has suggested to him (often) the best methods of meeting them.' " (italics Thayer's). "

He was probably witnessing to Abott. You know, doing good.

In fact here is the full post by logos 1560 to remind you.

"One believer who is a scholar researched this matter and could not find sound evidence to support that claim.
Here are the results of this person's research:

"Of interest in this regard (from my research) is that a Unitarian encyclopedia does not mention Thayer among their number; also, one finds in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker reprint, 1950), 11:314, the entry "Thayer, Joseph Henry. Congregationalist...."

As to the Congregational issue, I also have discovered the following comments in the article, C. J. H. Ropes, "John Henry Thayer: The Man and His Work," Biblical World 19 (1902)
[additional note: Ropes himself (1866-1933) "was born in Salem, Massachusetts. He graduated from Harvard College in 1889 and Andover Theological Seminary in 1893. In 1901, he was ordained a minister in the Congregational Church" -- which means he should have been swift to identify Thayer as a Unitarian were such indeed the case]:

p. 249 -- "While as a young man he usually attended Dr. Gannett's church (Unitarian) with his father, yet his own views followed those of his mother, and led him into the Congregational church."
p. 250(?) -- "...was pastor of the Crombie Street Congregational Church in Salem, Massachusetts for five years"

As for his doctrinal views, especially in relation to the deity of Christ, the same article speaks of him as:
p. 264-5 -- "one who in wide erudition and advanced scholarship 'knew it all,' and yet held fast to every vital point of the old faith."

Also, regarding the deity of Christ, the following comments seem to be the clincher:
p. 260 -- "He [Thayer] writes to a pastor desirous of reading up on the deity of Christ: 'But in preparing to present from the pulpit any doctrine of the truth of which I was thoroughly convinced (like the present doctrine) I have usually found myself most helped by reading the ablest books on the other side. By doing this, one not only best discovers what the actual difficulties of an unbeliever are, but has suggested to him (often) the best methods of meeting them.' " (italics Thayer's).

p.265 -- [quoting from another of Thayer's letters:] "The really strong argument in support of Christ's pre-existence has always seemed to me to be the concurrent, yet ... independent, representations of the biblical writers, not even excepting the synoptists .... The personage they portray forbids his classification with ordinary men, and leaves so unique and exalted a conception of his relation to the Father that the explicit declarations of the fourth gospel awaken no surprise in the ordinary reader."

Given all of these parameters, it seems that -- contrary to Martin/Klann or the Baker lexicon "publisher's preface" or the various KJVO/TRO propaganda against Thayer and his lexicon -- Thayer in fact was a Congregationalist and also held to the deity of Christ. "

2 Corinthians 3 and The Deity of The Holy Spirit

The question really to me would be is His lexicon a valid one for the time written, and does he actually have heresy in that work?
My understanding to this would be that even if he was a Unitarian, he would be honest to report that Bible Jesus was God, even if he did not agree with that !

 

[Van]

You can add that info here

Doctrinal Error in Thayer's Lexicon | SHARPER IRON

 

[SavedByGrace]

My purpose for this thread is to show that Dr Thayer, whose Greek lexicon is much used by Christians, which I have used for almost 40 years, is very good, though he was a Unitarian in his theology. There are places in this lexicon, which is originally the work of Dr Grimm, where the Deity of Jesus Christ is indeed confirmed. This is because of the actual word meanings, and not to do with their personal beliefs. Some example are, when Jesus says that He is the "first and the last", in Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13, under the Greek, "πρῶτος", this lexicon says, "with the article: ὁ πρῶτος καί ὁ ἔσχατος, i. e. the eternal One, Rev 1:17; Rev 2:8; Rev 22:13". This says that Jesus Christ IS the Eternal, Uncreated, Almighty God. In Rev. 3:14, Jesus says of Himself, that He is, "η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου". Where, for "αρχη", this lexicon says, "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause", which says that Jesus Christ IS The Actual Creator, and not just an "agent", through Whom the Father Created!. Then, we have Acts 3:15, where Jesus is called "the Prince of life". Under the Greek, "ἀρχηγός", this lexicon says, "the author: τῆς ζωῆς, Act 3:15", which shows Jesus Christ as THE Source of all life, which is what this lexicon says under "ζωή" for Jesus, "ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Logos having life in itself and communicating it to others, 1Jn 1:1".

The Jehovah's Witnesse, in their Emphatic Diaglot Greek New Testament, read for John 1:1, in the English on the right hand of the Greek text, "and the LOGOS was God". In their NWT, in Isaiah 9:6, they call Jesus, "Mighty God".

Likewise, in the New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, we read in John 1:1, "and the Word was God". And, in Colossians 2:9, "for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". In Hebrews 1:8, for Jesus Christ, "Thy throne O God is for ever and ever". Though Noyes did not himself believe in this!

Dr George Winer, another Unitarian, in his Greek grammar, says on Titus 2:13:

"In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grammar, Σωτηρoς μωv (our Saviour) may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly dependent on the article τoυ (the); but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show that thereis no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause και Σωτ...Χριστoυ (from,'and to Christ') by itself as referring to a second subject"

(A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.162. 1877 edition. - words in brackets are mine)

Grammar and meanings are one thing, but this does not mean that any of these believed in what they themselves admit!

 

[Yeshua1]

My purpose for this thread is to show that Dr Thayer, whose Greek lexicon is much used by Christians, which I have used for almost 40 years, is very good, though he was a Unitarian in his theology. There are places in this lexicon, which is originally the work of Dr Grimm, where the Deity of Jesus Christ is indeed confirmed. This is because of the actual word meanings, and not to do with their personal beliefs. Some example are, when Jesus says that He is the "first and the last", in Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13, under the Greek, "πρῶτος", this lexicon says, "with the article: ὁ πρῶτος καί ὁ ἔσχατος, i. e. the eternal One, Rev 1:17; Rev 2:8; Rev 22:13". This says that Jesus Christ IS the Eternal, Uncreated, Almighty God. In Rev. 3:14, Jesus says of Himself, that He is, "η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου". Where, for "αρχη", this lexicon says, "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause", which says that Jesus Christ IS The Actual Creator, and not just an "agent", through Whom the Father Created!. Then, we have Acts 3:15, where Jesus is called "the Prince of life". Under the Greek, "ἀρχηγός", this lexicon says, "the author: τῆς ζωῆς, Act 3:15", which shows Jesus Christ as THE Source of all life, which is what this lexicon says under "ζωή" for Jesus, "ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Logos having life in itself and communicating it to others, 1Jn 1:1".

The Jehovah's Witnesse, in their Emphatic Diaglot Greek New Testament, read for John 1:1, in the English on the right hand of the Greek text, "and the LOGOS was God". In their NWT, in Isaiah 9:6, they call Jesus, "Mighty God".

Likewise, in the New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, we read in John 1:1, "and the Word was God". And, in Colossians 2:9, "for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". In Hebrews 1:8, for Jesus Christ, "Thy throne O God is for ever and ever". Though Noyes did not himself believe in this!

Dr George Winer, another Unitarian, in his Greek grammar, says on Titus 2:13:

"In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grammar, Σωτηρoς μωv (our Saviour) may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly dependent on the article τoυ (the); but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show that thereis no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause και Σωτ...Χριστoυ (from,'and to Christ') by itself as referring to a second subject"

(A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.162. 1877 edition. - words in brackets are mine)

Grammar and meanings are one thing, but this does not mean that any of these believed in what they themselves admit!

The key is to have someone admit that is what the bible is teaching, even though they might disagree!

 

[Van]

Using the Blue Letter Bible study provisions, if you look at "spirit/pneuma" and scroll down to Thayer's, under meaning "3, d" you find this malarkey - "d. the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels, close to God and most intimately united to him (in doctrinal phraseology the divine nature of Christ):

 

[Paul from Antioch]

In preparation for my teaching an Introductory course on Baptist History, I discovered that there are at least three different philosophies concerning the classification of Baptist History: (1) To simply IGNORE it claiming is merely a human-based theory--that ALL Christian religions were merely offshoots from the Roman Catholic Church; (2) To merely state that ALL Baptist organizations were merely an extention of the general Protestant Reformation; And (3) Baptists were, in fact, a distinctly different movement, since most (If not all) "Protestant Reformers" still kept most of the trappings on the Roman Catholic Church. Baptist historians such as John T. Christian, etc., maintain that what we call Baptists today can be traced to a line of separate dissatisfied persons from the times of the 1st Century AD churches that are mentioned in Revelations chapters 1-3. Naturally the RCCh & her offsprings will classify them just as the Pharisees did when Jesus was here on earth, which meant that such men & groups as they were MUST be done away with by any means (Including Death). Hence tracing their lives & herititage is not ab easy task, & is fraught with lies & other misconceptions. How an individual will present Baptist history, therefore would be dependent on the view that the instructor takes.

 

[37818]

Forgot to put in this link:
How Did the Puritans Become Unitarians? – Shameless Popery

The article is ironic and fundamentalily anti sola Scriptura touting the need for creeds. Pro-Catholic link.