What do you normally do when a Jehovah Witness knocks on your door?

[D28guy]

DHK,

You posted...

"1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

According to the Word of God and some of the above posters, God the Father Himself, as well as Jesus Christ, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor be allowed in it."

DHK, please take some advice. Stop. Regarding that particular topic, for your own sake....just stop. With each post it gets worse for you.

We seem to be moving on to others issues now, so just let it go.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

God is Spirit. God created them in the image of Him... sinless.

Them being created male and female does not mean God is male and female.

Adam and Eve were created in God's perfect, sinless image.

That's a bit of a bizarre interpretation, isn't it?

DHK, the word not quite accurately translated 'effeminate' in I Cor 6 is
arsenokoitai, which literally means "men who have sex with men", a rather different meaning to 'effeminate'. Furthermore, if your use of the word was correct, that would exclude all women from the Kingdom as they too are (mainly) effeminate.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Not a bizarre interpretation at all.

A bizarre interpretation is the one that says God is male and female.

 

[DHK]

In post #229 you posted “Chairos is not just a greeting.” My point was that chairos is not a word that even exists. In fact it could not because that form is the form of a noun or adjective. In the NT and other literature chairein is used as a greeting or farewell. Chaireinis an infinitive form of chairo. There is only one exception to the word (chairein) used for greetings. That is in Romans 12:15 which is an infinitive that functions as an imperative [Young, R. A. (1994). Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic And Exegetical Approach. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers.].

Not one of those verses uses the word chairos. The verses you searched out are all verses that use words which stem from the word chairo. They are in many forms. Yes they do have many different meanings. The word used in 2 Jn 10 is in the infinitive form.

The verses which use chairein (the same word used in 2 Jn 10) are:

Acts 15:23
Acts 23:26
Rom 12:15
2Cor 2:3
James 1:1
2Joh 1:10,11

It appears that you went the opposite direction that I did. I started with the word used in 2 Jn10 and found the usages of that word to see how it was used in other places. You started with the root word to see how a number of different forms were used. The one main problem I have with your way of doing it is that the root word can have many meanings. The way I did the search was to see if the word used in 2 Jn 10 had any different meanings and if it was used differently in any verses.

There is a difference between verbs, and other parts of speech in the Greek language as you ought to know. Chairo is a verb. All verbs can be conjugated. This is true in any language, including English. One starts with the present active indicative or the infinitive, and breaks it down in its simplest form:

"To Loose" (luo)
I loose (luo) We loose (luomen)
You loose (lueis) you/ye loose (luete)
He/she/it looses (luei) They loose (luousi)

Throughout the Scriptures, when referring to a verb we simply refer to the present active indicative for the meaning (luo). I don't usually bother to with the rest of the conjugation, including the other voices, moods, tenses, etc. Thus the infinitive, or the Present Active Indicative of Chairo is used 74 times just as luo in all of its various forms is used 43 times. Does it really make a difference if the word is translated He loosed or They are loosing? No. The word is the same "to loose." It comes from the same word. Your objection therefore is quite invalid. If you know nothing about the conjugation of a Greek word then I suggest you learn. The ending of the word which simply gives the way it is used really makes no difference. Chairo means either farewell or Greeting. But those are minor distinctions as to its greater meaning of rejoice.

Sometime I would challenge you to do a study on the word presbuteros from the start of the OT, through the intertestamental period, through the NT, and into the early church time period. Then study the word episkopos doing the same thing. If you do you will find some rather interesting things that happened. Using an English concordance will not solve that issue.

You refer to an English Concordance. I used a Greek concordance of the NT, for the NT was written in Greek. The OT was written in Hebrew. "Presbuteros" won't even be found in the OT, obviously. It is a NT word only.
It is used 66 times in the NT, and is translated 3 different ways. The biggest difference is that it is a noun and not a verb. Thus it may have some other similar nouns related to it. The same is true for diakonos which has its female counterpart. But as it has been pointed out, in the KJV the word is not a translation, but a transliteration. The translation would simply be "servant." Deacon is not a translation of the word, but simply a transliteration. Nouns and verbs are treated very much differently from one another.
I also resort to a Greek Lexicon from time to time.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You posted...



DHK, please take some advice. Stop. Regarding that particular topic, for your own sake....just stop. With each post it gets worse for you.

We seem to be moving on to others issues now, so just let it go.

God bless,

Mike

Confine your original statements to the URL that you quoted and then tried to defend.
God has feminine traits.

Now God was manifest in the flesh and dwelt among us, seen of men, live and died for the sins of mankind, and John says: "We belheld his glory."

Please list the feminine traits of Jesus Christ.

 

[Matt Black]

Not a bizarre interpretation at all.

A bizarre interpretation is the one that says God is male and female.

Please cite your authority for your interpretation of that verse.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

There is not one Scripture in the Word of God that says He is a female. As a matter of fact, He is always talked about in the masculine...

He
His
Him
Father

 

[gb93433]

There is a difference between verbs, and other parts of speech in the Greek language as you ought to know. Chairo is a verb. All verbs can be conjugated. This is true in any language, including English. One starts with the present active indicative or the infinitive, and breaks it down in its simplest form:

"To Loose" (luo)
I loose (luo) We loose (luomen)
You loose (lueis) you/ye loose (luete)
He/she/it looses (luei) They loose (luousi)

Throughout the Scriptures, when referring to a verb we simply refer to the present active indicative for the meaning (luo).

That is only the lexical form. If you want the actual meaning then you must go further than just the meaning of the pres. act. ind. lexical form.

The form of the verb will determine a lot of its meaning. Many words are only used in a particular form. One would never say I gone to the store. I go to the store has a very different meaning than I went to the store.

If you want to get the basic meaning that is different. If you want to get the actual meaning then you must look at the actual word not just the lexical form.

I don't usually bother to with the rest of the conjugation, including the other voices, moods, tenses, etc. Thus the infinitive, or the Present Active Indicative of Chairo is used 74 times just as luo in all of its various forms is used 43 times.

The infinitive form of chairo is used only seven times. Six of those as a greeting and one as a command to rejoice.

Does it really make a difference if the word is translated He loosed or They are loosing? No. The word is the same "to loose."

It makes a huge difference.

I am killing is much different than I killed.

What you described is the action. It could be the difference between a punctiliar action and a continual action.

For example in 1 Peter 1:4 the word translated reserved in heaven is a perfect passive participle feminine singular accusative. That particular participle puts the emphasis on the existing result. The act descibed will be antecedent to the time of the leading verb, but the state that has resulted from that past action wil be contemporaneous with the leading verb.

The action described in 1 Peter 1:4 is much different than reserved just being a past tense verb. My salvation being reserved is not just a past tense verb. It is a past tense decision (action) and continues on into the future.

Participles are used very differently than verbs. That is much like asking what is the difference between an adjective and a noun.

It comes from the same word. Your objection therefore is quite invalid. If you know nothing about the conjugation of a Greek word then I suggest you learn. The ending of the word which simply gives the way it is used really makes no difference. Chairo means either farewell or Greeting. But those are minor distinctions as to its greater meaning of rejoice.

Remeber you originally talked about chairos which does not exist anywhere. Chairo does.

You refer to an English Concordance. I used a Greek concordance of the NT, for the NT was written in Greek. The OT was written in Hebrew. "Presbuteros" won't even be found in the OT, obviously. It is a NT word only.

It is found in the LXX.

It is used 66 times in the NT, and is translated 3 different ways. The biggest difference is that it is a noun and not a verb.

Now take a look at the word episkopos and notice the time when it was used.

 

[DHK]

The form of the verb will determine a lot of its meaning. Many words are only used in a particular form. One would never say I gone to the store. I go to the store has a very different meaning than I went to the store.

Of course the form of the verb determines the meaning to some extent. It always does. "I am going" is different than "I went." But the same verb "to go" was used. That can't be used. The same verb chairo is used 74 times and is translated a number of different times. The greeting/farewell meanings of the chairo are well in the minority of that particular verb. It is not often used that way.

If you want to get the basic meaning that is different. If you want to get the actual meaning then you must look at the actual word not just the lexical form.

There is no disagreement there. But the root of the verb still remains the same. "To go" is still "to go" no matter which way you look at it. It may mean different things at different times. But it is the context that determines the meaning. "You go boy! you go!" "Go on now: you expect me to believe that." "They say that he is a 'go-getter.'" Does the verb "to go" always mean "go" in its typical sense? No. But the context will tell us the meaning. The same is true with any other word. And just because "children" has one meaning in 1John doesn't mean it has the same meaning in 2John; the context doesn't allow for it. Just because "chairo" means "greetings" or "rejoice" in other passages, doesn't mean it means the same in 2John; the context doesn't allow it.

The infinitive form of chairo is used only seven times. Six of those as a greeting and one as a command to rejoice.

That doesn't change the basic meaning of the word. The meaning is determined by context.

Remeber you originally talked about chairos which does not exist anywhere. Chairo does.

I apologize. It was a simple spelling mistake on my part to add an s on to the word chairo. I will try to be more careful next time.

You refer to an English Concordance. I used a Greek concordance of the NT, for the NT was written in Greek. The OT was written in Hebrew. "Presbuteros" won't even be found in the OT, obviously. It is a NT word only.

It is found in the LXX.

Though I own one, I am not a great fan of it.

Now take a look at the word episkopos and notice the time when it was used.

I am not sure of your purpose here. It sounds like you need to start another thread.

 

[gb93433]

I am not sure of your purpose here. It sounds like you need to start another thread.

It really has nothing to do with the discussion of 2Jn 10

IYears ago in one of my classes I chose that word and found it to be interesting. At first it was quite confusing until I looked at the word over time.

 

[Rubato 1]

Yep. I'm confused.

 

[gb93433]

But it is the context that determines the meaning. "You go boy! you go!" "Go on now: you expect me to believe that." "They say that he is a 'go-getter.'" Does the verb "to go" always mean "go" in its typical sense? No. But the context will tell us the meaning. The same is true with any other word.

Context does not always give the correct meaning.

I gave you an example from 1 Peter 1:4. The context tells nothing of the impact of the word Peter used to cummunicate the message about the inheritance by using the word that is translated received. The word received is the best English translation but it is about illuminating as a 25 watt bulb in a large room.

If you do not believe me then tell me about the word received and its action directly from context alone.

And just because "children" has one meaning in 1John doesn't mean it has the same meaning in 2John; the context doesn't allow for it. Just because "chairo" means "greetings" or "rejoice" in other passages, doesn't mean it means the same in 2John; the context doesn't allow it.

Then what proof do you have otherwise other than just your opinion?

I did a search to see if John used the word children to mean the same thing in all of his writings. So I checked to see if that was the case. If I found that he did not then I would have thrown it out. In the first letter he used it the same way as he did in the thrid letter. So it is likely that he used it the same way in the time in between. When I did notice the plural you in 2 Jn 10 I had to ask myself who the plural was. When I considered when the letter was written and to whom it was written it has many similarities of the same style as letters that were written under communism. When I had some friends who were in comunist countries we used different names to refer to certain other literal things.

Could I be wrong? Of course. I just don't happen to agree with you and I think I have good reasons why? If you could give me some historical evidence and grammatical evidence I am open to that. I believe there is more evidence to support a reference to believers and a church than a lady and her kids who are under 15. Furthermore when I consider the society and the relationships between men and women then I would find it extremely difficult to believe that a man would even consider writing an actual woman. It would not ever happen today in a number of countries in that part of the world. In those days pastors did not communicate with a woman in the church. There was a clear distinct separation very much greater than in the U.S.

 

[DHK]

Could I be wrong? Of course. I just don't happen to agree with you and I think I have good reasons why? If you could give me some historical evidence and grammatical evidence I am open to that. I believe there is more evidence to support a reference to believers and a church than a lady and her kids who are under 15. Furthermore when I consider the society and the relationships between men and women then I would find it extremely difficult to believe that a man would even consider writing an actual woman. It would not ever happen today in a number of countries in that part of the world. In those days pastors did not communicate with a woman in the church. There was a clear distinct separation very much greater than in the U.S.

Why not consider this one simple reason. It is historical.
The allegorical method of interpretation was introduced by Origen in the middle of the third century. It was unknown before that time. Thus it can be safley concluded that no Christian treated this epistle as an allegory before Origen's time. You are at odds with at least 200 years or more of the first years of Christianity.

Even after Origen the allegorical method of interpretation was not popular. It never did become very popular until the time of Augustine at the beginning fo the 5th century. Note that both of these men were heretics. Origen, especially, was a heretic--considered a heretic even by the RCC.
There is no reason to consider the epistle as an allegory, none whatsoever.

 

[DHK]

Here is an interesting commentary on 2John 1:10 by John Gill:

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

2Jo 1:10 - If there come any unto you,.... Under the character of a preacher;

and bring not this doctrine; or does not preach the doctrine of Christ, as before explained, but despises it, and preaches a contrary one:

receive him not into your house; neither into the house of God, suffer him not to preach there; nor into your own house, give him no entertainment there: false teachers always tried to creep into houses, where they served their own turn every way, both by feeding their bellies, and spreading their pernicious doctrines; and therefore such should: be avoided, both publicly and privately; their ministry should not be attended on in the church, or house of God; and they should not be entertained in private houses, and much less caressed:

neither bid him God speed; or give him the usual civil form of salutation, as a good day to you, all hail, all health and prosperity attend you, the Lord be with you, and the like. The word used by the Jews was [FONT=&quot]אישר[/FONT], which signifies "happiness"; so it is said (i), what do they salute with? [FONT=&quot]אישר[/FONT], "God speed"; which was forbidden to say to one that was ploughing in the seventh year. The meaning is, that with such no familiar conversation should be had, lest any encouragement should be given them; or it should induce a suspicion in the minds of other saints, that they are in the same sentiments; or it should tend to make others think favourably of them, and be a snare and a stumblingblock to weak Christians.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Seems John Gill believed the same as we have been stating throughout this thread... house meant a family residence.

 

[Matt Black]

There is not one Scripture in the Word of God that says He is a female. As a matter of fact, He is always talked about in the masculine...

He
His
Him
Father

I was asking for your authority for your interpretation of Gen 1:27. To me, it seems pretty plain that that verse is not talking about sinlessness as an attribute of God being passed to humanity but male and femaleness. Why is that (to me) plain? Because that's exactly what the verse talks about: "He created them in His own image; male and female He created them". No mention of His sinlessness as part of His image there at all, and it would require a feat of eisegesis to read that into the text to justify your interpretation. There is however mention of male and femaleness as part of His image and thus my interpretation merely requires a plain reading of the text (which I thought fundies liked to do?).

Oh, well, so much for sola Scriptura. Again.

 

[Matt Black]

Yep. I'm confused.

Thus is one of the pernicious fruits of sola Scriptura manifest.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I was asking for your authority for your interpretation of Gen 1:27. To me, it seems pretty plain that that verse is not talking about sinlessness as an attribute of God being passed to humanity but male and femaleness. Why is that (to me) plain? Because that's exactly what the verse talks about: "He created them in His own image; male and female He created them". No mention of His sinlessness as part of His image there at all, and it would require a feat of eisegesis to read that into the text to justify your interpretation. There is however mention of male and femaleness as part of His image and thus my interpretation merely requires a plain reading of the text (which I thought fundies liked to do?).

Oh, well, so much for sola Scriptura. Again.

God is a Spirit. Not a man or a woman.
And yet, the Bible always refers to God as He, Him, His and Father and never she, her, or mother.

 

[Matt Black]

What has that to do with an exegesis of Gen 1:27?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

What has that to do with an exegesis of Gen 1:27?

Scripture must interpret Scripture. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that says God is a female.