Hot answers tagged

16

The word is μοναὶ, plural of μονή. LSJ definition. The word is a noun formed from the verb μένω, to remain or abide somewhere. So a literal translation would be something like "many places in which to abide." The REB renders this as "many dwelling-places." Re the KJV, wiktionary lists the following obsolete/obscure definition for "...


14

Your question had me as perplexed as Habakkuk! Not knowing the answer I found an article on the subject, the essence of which goes something like this: When Habakkuk says that God’s “eyes are too pure to look on evil” we have to read it in the context of the larger discussion. Habakkuk understands the righteous character of God. He also knows that the ...


9

This is definitely a grammatical problem and is subtle. The matter at hand in John 10:33 is what Daniel B Wallace in "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (GGBB) calls "Qualitative Predicate Nominatives. Let is take some non-threatening examples. In each of these case we will have two nouns in the nominative case connected or correlated by a ...


7

The Greek adverb καθὼς precludes any difference in the honor to be given to the Son compared to that to be given to the Father. As BDAG notes, καθὼς is used “of comparison” meaning “just as.”1 For example, 1 John 2:6: 6 He who claims to abide in him, he himself also should so walk, just as he walked. Ϛʹ ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ...


6

No, I do not think John was giving us a hyperbole. The reason is, this is a coda of all that came before, and bookends the opening prologue regarding the Logos, and how everything that was created, exclusively came into being by an act of God through It. John 1:3 (ESV), All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. ...


5

The stoning of Stephen, the execution of James (the brother of John) and the seizing of Peter with a view to his, also, execution ; all happened in the aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, facilitated by the Jews, and in the aftermath of Jesus' death as he voluntarily expired. Until then, they feared the people (who would have urged ...


5

They may well have considered trying again to stone him Some consider Sanhedrin 43a to preserve an arrest warrant for Jesus, in which it is indicated that Jesus was to be arrested for sorcery and put to death by stoning. Historian Paul Maier examines the evidence here and suggests this was originally written before Jesus' death (since afterwards it was well-...


4

Does this verse suggest that Jesus died only in body, but in soul/mind/spirit He remained alive even after the cross? Yes. Just before Jesus physically died on the cross, Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. Only God can kill the soul. Matthew 10:...


4

Satan was ‘doing his duty’, fulfilling his role. That’s why the Lord had no other option but to allow the accuser to ‘probe’ Job. If he had no ‘right’ to test Job, he wouldn’t have been able to ‘touch’ Job. To suggest that the Lord willingly approved an ‘evil’ entity to ‘attack’ man paints the wrong picture. And, a point worth considering, even Michael, the ...


4

[During his life] was Judas [labeled] a "Christian" ( Χριστιανούς )? - No. Although Judas was listed as a disciple of Jesus in Luke 6:16, Judas would not have been labeled "Christian" since he was not alive to attend the church at Antioch - based on Acts 1:16-19. Acts 11:26 The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


4

The problem with the Unitarian position is that it attempts to create a special meta-narrative by which it then makes special pleadings for verses that are troublesome. Thus, any "theory" about the nature of God must be jealously guarded against this very human problem. The Trinity and Arianism are NOT immune to this. The difficulty with ...


4

Is John 21:25 a hyperbole? The Study Note at John 21:25 (NWT Study Edition) arrives at the same conclusion of hyperbole and gives an explanation: many other things that Jesus did: Using hyperbole, John wrote that the world itself would not have room for all the scrolls (the book style then used) needed to record every detail about Jesus’ life and ministry. ...


4

The charge is blasphemy. Jesus argues against that charge with an argument based on scripture, wherein he quotes the very law that they claim to adhere to. But his argument is sophisticated and his argument skirts around the issue that they are trying to force. He does not make any further claim about himself. Jesus' statements relate to his 'father'. It is ...


3

According to John's Gospel, the "one who was" is The Word (1:1), And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, ESV) and "ὁ ὢν" is the μονογενὴς Θεὸς in the bosom of the Father (1:18) I am [ἐγώ εἰμι NA28] the way, and the truth, ...


3

Let us tread very carefully here as there are minefields to the left and right. However, I congratulate the OP on noticing a very significant connection between these important titles. It is true that John ascribes the unusual title, "ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος" (or a slight variant) as follows: Rev 1:4 - Grace and peace to you from him who is,...


3

Jesus knew about Judas from the beginning. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and ...


3

Why does Jesus refer to himself as “your Son” in John 17:1? For emphasis. Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Later in Exodus 32:7, God was angry with the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of ...


3

It is grammar or theology that causes translators to typically translate John 10:33 as “declare Yourself to be God” as opposed to “a god”? The Emphatic Diaglott New Testament (1942) John 10:33 Answered him the Jews saying: Concerning a good work not we stone thee, but concerning blasphemy, and that thou, a man being, makest thyself a god. NWT John 10:33 ...


3

As often is the case, it is both grammar and dogma/theology that has rendered 'God' - but mostly dogma. The key to understanding difficult or strange passages is to seek other verses input and the consistent message God has left through the whole text. If we eliminate the bias that has crept into the text we will see this consistent message clearly. We can ...


3

The reason for the difference in translation of these two passages, John 10:33 vs Acts 28:6 is subtle. For completeness let me list the two: John 10:33 - ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν = because you being human make yourself God Acts 28:6 - αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν = he is a god Grammatically, the two are slightly different with different coupling verbs ...


2

At this point, I can't say what the six stands for, but this is the symbolism of the jars within their context of John's Gospel. John does make the point that there were six jars, but note that these jars were for purification washing.  Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification,... (John 2:6a, ESV) John had previously ...


2

Why is it that so many are blinded to the promises and predictions Jesus made? I believe it is that Satan has done all in his power to blindside us into thinking that our souls are wafting around in heaven, waiting to be reunited with our bodies. My soul is a gift from God. It's what makes me the person I am. It's unique. Like the hairs on my head. It's my ...


2

even if you do not believe the second stem of μονογενής is not from γεννάω (gennaō), but rather the noun γένος Kittle describes this use IV 737 as the only descendent from a man or a woman. This is in fact the only way the first three uses can be interpreted in the New Testament. Luke 7:12 Luke 8:42 and Luke 9:38. The two uses in Psalms if literalized to ...


2

To answer that, let's take a look at the other verses. Who does our Lord Jesus Christ introduce in verse 3? John 17:3 (NKJV) "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Who does our Lord Jesus Christ introduce in verse 3? Jesus said, "the only true God". Did our Lord Jesus ...


2

The significant difference between "God" and "gods" is of whom is being referenced. The word for "God" in Hebrew is אֵל/EL which is not a name but a title which is associated with a being that has power/force. When referring to "The God of Israel" the word EL is usually couple with another word that would specify ...


2

It is significant that in the Gospel of John, John NEVER names himself (his name does not appear at all in the Gospel), despite being one of the most prominent disciples, and part of Jesus' inner circle of Peter, James and John. Matt 17:1, Mark 5:37, 9:2, 14:33, Luke 8:51, etc. He always refers to himself in the third person as either, "that other ...


2

New Living Translation So tell me, why is it that you Jews insist that Jerusalem is the only place of worship, while we Samaritans claim it is here at Mount Gerizim, where our ancestors worshiped?” Barnes' Notes on the Bible In this mountain - Mount Gerizim, only a little way from Sychar. On this mountain they had built a temple somewhat similar to the ...


2

Different verbs are used. δαιμονίζομαι = demon-possessed, as used in places like Matt 4:24, 8:16, 28, 33, 9:32, 12:22, etc. Thayer defines this succinctly as, "to be under the power of a demon" In John 13:27 we have εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ Σατανᾶς = (in quintessential redundant Hebrew phraseology) "Satan entered into him". Thus, John ...


2

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:23 ESV) Is there any difference between the way we are to honor the Father and the Son? In principle, no. In practice, yes. Only the Son came to earth; only He became flesh and that historical difference makes for ...


2

Is there any difference between the way we are to honor the Son and the way we are to honor the Father? John 5:22-23 Der Übermensch has already answered this with a definitive no. Here I will focus on your other questions. How are we to honor the Son? How are we to honor the Father? We can do so by obeying the greatest commandment in Deuteronomy 6: 5 Love ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible