archive-edu.com » EDU » T » THEOLOGY.EDU

Total: 197

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • ANE History: Judah in Exile
    point is the reference to Persia Paras as a country which was strong enough to dispatch troops to fight in the armies of Tyre and Gog Ezekiel 27 10 and 38 5 How could Ezekiel make this casual mention of the Persians writes Torrey before that people had made its appearance on the stage of history Archeology has likewise furnished the answer to that question In 1930 31 Ernst Herzfeld and E F Weidner published inscriptions showing that Persia was an important independent country under Achaemenian kings as early as the seventh century BC several generations before Ezekiel s time In addition to this evidence the Assyrian records of the ninth century BC already mention Persia as a country in western Iran It is certanily true that Persia did not become a world power until Cyrus conquered Astyages king of Media c 550 BC a little more than two decades after the close of Ezekiel s ministry However the prophet s reference only necessitates a land of relative importance before the time of Cyrus The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar II The splendors of the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar II are now quite well known thanks to archeological excavations that began in 1899 From that year on the Deutsche Orientgessellschaft under the leadership of Robert Koldewey excavated at the site of the ancent city and uncovered remains of the vast building projects with which the king s own inscriptions largely deal The Book of Daniel significantly records the proud Babylonian monarch s boast of the magnificence of his royal city which receives ample illustration from the monuments Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal dwelling place by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty Daniel 4 30 Archeology shows that the city did indeed owe most of its immortal reputation for magnificence to this monarch Among the vast ruins rises the Ishtar gate leading through a massive double wall of fortifications and ornamented with bulls and dragons done in enameled colored brick The Ishtar Gate gave access to the city s great processional street whose walls were also adorned with enameled lions as was also the throne room in Nebuchadnezzar s palace In the temple area only the ground plan now remains of Nebuchadnezzar s ziggurat but according to Herodotus it towered to a height of eight stages Not far distant was Marduk s temple which the king restored built with step backs liike a modern skyscraper In the general area but now no longer identifiable were the most famous of all Nebuchadnezzar s constructions the hanging gardens which the king built in terraces to compensate so the story goes his Median queen for the absence of her beloved mountains and which the Greeks viewed as one of the seven wonders of the world The East India House inscription now in London devotes six columns of Akkadian writing to a description of the huge building projects of Nebuchadnezzar in his zeal to enlarge and beautify his capital city He rebuilt more than twenty temples in Babylon and Borsippa executed a vast system of fortifications and made great quays for the shipping industry Most of the bricks found in the excavations of Babylon carry his stamp Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon supporter of Esagila and Ezida exalted first born son of Nabopolassar king of Babylon Esagila house whose top is lofty was the Babylonian name of Marduk s temple at Babylon Ezida the enduring house was the temple of Nebo patron of culture at Borsippa One of Nebuchadnezzar s records recalls his boast mentioned in Daniel 4 30 The fortifications of Esagila and Babylon I strengthened and established the name of my reign forever Daniel s allusion to Nebuchadnezzar s building activities is important in reference to the common critical view of the book which gives it a Maccabean date c 167 BC But the problem is how did the supposed late writer of the book know that the glories of Babylon were due to Nebuchadnezzar s building operations R H Pfeiffer though defending the critical view confesses that we shall presumably never know But if one accepts the genuiness of the book of Daniel in this instance notably supported by the archeology the critic s problem vanishes Evidence of the Jewish Exile The interesting question to the biblical archeologist is whether or not any concrete archeological evidence is available proving that the Jews were really captives in Babylon The discovery of some three hundred cuneiform tablets in a vaulted building nerar the Ishtar Gate in Babylon now makes possible an affirmative answer to this query These tablets upon careful study were found to date between 595 and 570 BC the period virtually coterminous with Ezekiel s dated ministry to the exiles They contain lists of rations of food paid to craftsmen and captives who resided in or near Babylon during this period Among the recipients of these rations were people from various subject nations the Jewish people were not the only displaced persons in the Babylonian empire The nations listed include Egypt Philistia Phoenicia Asia Minor Persia and of course Judah The Jewish people that are listed have characteristically Jewish names some of which are biblical such as Semachiah Gaddiel and Shelemiah It is in these tablets associated with five other royal princes that the mention of King Jehoiachin of Judah can be found Jehoiachin s name has an important effect on the authenticity of Ezekiel Jehoiachin written Yaukin an abreviated form of his name is specifically described as king of the land of Yahud Yahud is a shortened for of Judah Yehuda in Hebrew which is well known in the period after the exile when the small Jewish state stamped official jar handles and silver coins with the legend Yehud One of the documents mentioning Yaukin is specifically dated 592 BC At this time some have suggested the captive Judean king seems to have been free to move about the city as suggested

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/lec23.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ANE History: Persia
    master of Persia and Persia became the master of Media soon it would become the master of the entire Near Eastern world as well An alliance was formed against Cyrus by Croesus the king of Lydia which is in Asia minor Croesus is significant if for no other reason than the fact that he is credited with the invention of coinage Nabonidus of Babylon and Amasis the Pharoah of Egypt 569 525 BC So in 546 Cyrus attacked the forces of Croesus and defeated him thus gaining control of the whole of Asia Minor modern day Turkey His next thrust was at Babylon itself and the Cyrus Cylinder records the way he believed or at least this is what he told the Babylonians that Marduk the patron deity of Babylon assisted his subsequent victory Marduk to his city Babylon he caused Cyrus to go he made him take the road to Babylon going as a friend and companion at his side without battle and conflict he permitted him to enter Babylon He spared his city Babylon a calamity Cyrus is said to have diverted the course of the Euphrates River during his assault of Babylon Since the river passed under the city walls and through the city when the water was diverted his army was able to enter the city easily by simply walking along the now dry riverbed Thus Babylon fell to Cyrus about 538 BC With the conquest of Babylon Cyrus became the ruler of the largest empire the world had known till that time During the reign of his jerk of a son the influence of Persia would extend all the way to Egypt as well Under Cyrus the fall of Babylon was an answer to prayer and prophecy It would signal the beginning of their restoration to the promissed land The first principle of Cyrus policy was that the various people of his empire should be left free in their religious worshi and beliefs Cyrus was one of the first rulers to recognize a basic principle of statesmanship religion is stronger than the state Instead of sacking cities and wrecking temples he showed a courteous respect for the deities of the conquered and contributed to the maintance of their shrines This is seen in the wording of his decree to the Jewish people in permitting them to return to their land His positive statements about Yahweh and the Jews should thus be taken in the context of his attitude toward other deities rather than being taken as proof that he had become a convert to Judaism Cyrus died of ambition He was killed in a battle with Massagetae an obscure tribe that peopled the southern shores of the Caspian Sea His son the jerk was called Cambyses He was half crazy He took the throne upon his father s untimely demise and immediately put to death his own brother and potential rival Smerdis Attracted to the wealth of Egypt like a moth to a flame he

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/lec24.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • and see if the predicate noun we found in the English translation on the other page eagle in the example above actually comes before the verb in the Greek If it comes before the verb and if it is anarthrous that is without the article the and meets the other requirements above then we may have found a proper example to compare with John 1 1c N So when all the proper examples those most closely equivalent to the actual grammatical usage found at John 1 1c found in John s writings are examined in the most respected trinitarian Bibles KJV RSV NASB NIV etc we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as you are a p rophet Jn 4 19 which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1 1c as The Word was a g od Compare the P rophet at Jn 1 21 Robertson p 768 article used when noun is only one of its kind O Such a rendering is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called gods or a god by the inspired Bible writers This understanding was also found in most of the writings of the Christians of the first three centuries after the death of Christ and in fact was even taught by famed trinitarians Athanasius 4th century and St Augustine 5th century A D P Even the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek speaking scholars Origen died 254 A D tells us that John 1 1c actually means the Word was a god Origen s Commentary on John Book I ch 42 Bk II ch 3 Q In fact even certain trinitarian scholars have correctly admitted that those very first readers for whom John wrote his Gospel were already aware of the Logos concept even before John wrote to them This was the concept of famed Jewish scholar and writer Philo In this best known Jewish concept of the Logos of that time the Word Logos was the Son of God and with God and a g od in his own right but he was certainly not God nor equal to the one true God R The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word Logos proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers were already familiar with The Word Logos was a god S And of course John himself recorded the following prayer by Jesus Father This is eternal life to know thee who ALONE art truly God John 17 1 3 NEB If we examine every place in John s and the other Gospel writers writings where he has used theo s the form which is used for subjects and predicate nouns and ends with an s to mean God we find he always uses the article ho the with it unless it is accompanied by a prepositional modifier of you to us with him for

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHST/Courses/Languages/jw.html (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • author the rest of the New Testament and at times non biblical Koine It is clear from JPA s three or four examples that the data is very limited and so we would want to look at other Koine examples Another question might be Why does the subject need to be a non abstract unmodified noun or pronoun We would need passages show why this conditions makes a difference We could even ask Why not restrict the subject to having the article The subject of John 1 1c has the article Why is it OK to ignore this but make so many other restrictions JPA also mentions a difference between types of words She says god falls into the same category as word and house For each word in her first category you can make them plural and use articles a god the God gods a word the word words a house the house houses She then says other words like pretty holy and true are not like that At this point JPA is very unclear and to me shows a complete lack of grammar knowledge All the words in her first category are nouns All the words in her second are adjectives Nouns and adjectives do not compare they fulfill different grammatical functions Furthermore even JPA s basic statement is wrong There are times in English when we can use an article with an adjective One of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies is titled The Good the Bad and the Ugly If I use JPA s words I would say The Pretty the Holy and the True but it would be a very different movie This usage treats an adjective as a noun the noun is only known from context I ve seen the movie so I know the title refers to a good man a bad man and an ugly man Without knowing the context of the title which is the movie it could refer to women or children or cats or even computer programs In English using adjectives as if they are nouns is rare In Greek it happens often All first year Greek students should learn this for example Basics of Biblical Greek Chapter 9 especially pp 64 66 One of JPA s conditions is that the nouns be non abstract so perhaps she was trying to distinguish concrete nouns house cat dog from abstract nouns beauty holiness and truth The trouble with doing this is that such distinctions sometimes break down Λογος word in Greek can be both abstract and concrete God in both English and Greek can be both as well Worse a god and God have a different meaning as I explain under Argument 8 below JPA uses the phase indefinite meaning I want to clarify what she is saying When a noun is used it can have three types of meaning indefinite definite and qualitative When a noun is used indefinitely it refer to one member of a class Wallace Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p 244 A man spoke to an assembly means some male member of the human race spoke to some assembly Nouns used definitely lay the stress on individual identity Wallace p 245 President Bush spoke to Congress identifies both the man and the assembly Nouns used qualitatively stress quality nature or essence Wallace p 244 God is love stresses that God has the quality of love JPA s indefinite meaning statement takes John 1 1c to mean that the Word λογος is just a member of a class of gods Some trinitarians believe θεος god is definite the word is the one true God Some trinitarians myself included believe θεος god in John 1 1c is qualitative the Word has the essence of God Every quality true of God is also true of the Word Notice that the core of the disagreement over John 1 1c is the meaning of the passage not the translation The translation often closely follows from the meaning but the two are not identical I believe John 1 1c is qualitative It could be translated the Word was divine This can be confusing especially with the modern use of divine to refer to something really good That chocolate was simply divine Saying the Word has all the essence and qualities of God is wordy and strays from the Greek Simple saying the Word was God does not distinguish from the definite meaning You can see that one meaning can does not dictate a single translation I prefer the traditional the Word was God and don t mind explaining the subtleties if someone is really interested JPA provides three sample verses that meet her restrictions They could be called four examples because JPA cites two passages from John 18 37 JPA s restriction statement correctly deals with the meaning of the passage However when she deals with her examples all she does is use translations to prove her point Let s examine each JPA example verse for its meaning John 4 19 προφητης ει συ You are a prophet Wallace calls this the most likely candidate for an indefinite pre verbal predicate nominative PN This probably is indefinite as JPA asserts John 8 48 Σαμαριτης ει συ You are a Samaritan This could be indefinite but is more probably qualitative The Jews were focused on showing Jesus was evil They would be looking at the attributes of a Samaritan not whether Jesus was physically a member of the Samaritan race which he wasn t When the focus is on the attributes or qualities conveyed by the noun it should be taken as qualitative not indefinite John 18 37 βασιλευς ει συ βασιλευς ειμι You are a king I am a king The charge brought to Pilate against Jesus was that he called himself the King of the Jews Luke 23 2 Pilate knew this as shown by his question in verse 33 Are you the King of the Jews and the inscription he put on the cross John 19 19 22 Pilate is not asking Jesus whether he is some indefinite king He is asking about whether he is King of the Jews This would be a definite usage because of the context Jesus is answering in kind so his answer is also definite though I suspect he is saying he is king of much more than the physical Jewish province Pilate was worried about So of JPA s three or four examples one is indefinite one is qualitative and one or two are definite This is not good support for her position Her use of translation as proof instead of the meaning obscures the data JPA also misses some relevant verses In addition to the verses JPA lists I also found these John 5 10 σαββατον εστιν It is the Sabbath John 6 63 πνευμα εστιν και ζωη εστιν He is spirit and he is life John 19 31 παρασκευει ην It was the day of preparation John 20 14 Ιησοθς εστιν It was Jesus John 5 10 and John 19 31 are both not indefinite I would take John 5 10 as qualitative since they are focused on the quality of the day Jesus violated the day of rest I would take John 19 31 as definite they are looking at a particular day of the passover week Clearly neither is indefinite They are also both translated with the English definite article contrary to JPA s assertion It could be argued that John 6 63 uses abstract nouns spirit and life and so does not meet JPA s restrictions However I could also argue the same about θεος god in John 1 1c which would mean even John 1 1c does not meet JPA s restrictions Assuming θεος god is non abstract in John 1 1c begs the question That is the Jehovah Witness position is that θεος god should be non abstract a god One of the other positions is that θεος god in John 1 1c is qualitative and thus abstract indicating a quality In this case it would be exactly like John 6 63 In John 20 14 the noun is a name so JPA might argue that it is not similar to John 1 1c However to state it is different than John 1 1 requires proof To just state the restriction again begs the question If John 1 1c has a definite meaning then θεος god would have a name like quality Θεος god would be used in the same way Jehovah Witnesses use Jehovah 3 F Dana Mantey p 148 gives a parallel to John 1 1 which translates the place was a market JPA does not specify what Dana and Mantey s parallel is It turns out the parallel is not from the Bible From page 148 of Dana Mantey we find out that the reference is from Xenophon s Anabasis 1 4 6 Thus far JPA has strongly insisted on only using examples from the Gospel of John She does not what us to even use other writings of John or other Gospel let alone the rest of the New Testament or other Koine sources Now she sites an example that is not even Koine but classical Greek Classical Greek is much more formal Greek that was used by most of the famous Greek writers It was used many centuries before Christ and was considered elegant and formal much as we often revere King James English The word koine means common Koine was the common trade language in the time of Jesus Classical Greek and Koine can have many similarities but often do not compare Nevertheless lets look at Dana and Mantey s comparison They say the parallel of Xenophon s Anabasis 1 4 6 with John 1 1c is that The article points out the subject This is the main point not the lack of article in the predicate Furthermore they continue Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεος god As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεος god Dana and Mantey do not compare Xenophon s passage to show that John 1 1c should be translated a god JPA should not quote them as agreeing with her argument 4 I Various grammar books agree that the noun must be without additional phases JPA claims three grammar books support her view that a PN noun must be without additional phrases to be a parallel to John 1 1c One of these is C F D Moule A Grammar of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Cambridge University Press I am not familiar with this book I searched the Library of Congress Amazon and The Master s Semimany Library where I received my M Div and could not find it The closest I could find for Moule was Moule C F D Charles Francis Digby An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek Cambridge Eng University Press 1953 Library of Congress Control No 53013295 I also found a grammar by Moulton Moulton James Hope A Grammar of New Testament Greek Edinburgh T T Clark 1906 LC Control No 07013420 I cannot speak to this apparently non existent book A second book JPA cites is Dana and Mantey p 137 JPA does not indicate a specific quote on page 137 Perhaps JPA she is thinking of this The use of prepositions possessive and demonstrative pronouns and the genitive case also tends to make a word definite At such times even if the article is not used the object is already distinctly indicated First Dana and Mantey do not exclude the dative and accusative nor apposition as JPA does So JPA is being too restrictive For example John 10 33 uses anarthrous θεον god accusative singular form to refer to God JPA cites John 10 33 regarding ανθρωπος man and I comment on it under Argument 8 below Second JPA ignores the immediately preceding quote of A T Robertson Whenever the article occurs the object is certainly definite When it is not used the object may or may not be JPA also ignores the statement in Section i It does more than mark the object as one definitely conceived W 105 for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article These do not speak directly to Argument 4 but they do indicate that Dana and Mantey and Robertson think that Greek nouns can be definite even without the article The third book JPA cites has long been held as the standard of Koine grammars Robertson A T A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research I don t have easy access to the print version of the book but have read the relevant passages before A good article on the web http www aomin org JOHN1 1 html has an extended passage about what A T Robertson writes It agrees with what I know of Robertson so I reproduce that passage here I begin with the most quoted scholar on this subject Dr A T Robertson And the Word was God kai theos en ho logos By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable each having the article The subject is made plain by the article ho logos and the predicate without it theos just as in John 4 24 pneuma ho theos can only mean God is spirit not spirit is God So in 1 John 4 16 ho theos agape estin can only mean God is love not love is God as a so called Christian scientist would confusedly say For the article with the predicate see Robertson Grammar pp 767f So in John 1 14 ho Logos sarx egeneto the Word became flesh not the flesh became Word Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God fellowship of the Father and Son what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son each necessary to the other Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality A T Robertson Word Pictures in the New Testament vol 5 pp 4 5 As Robertson made reference to his voluminous Grammar in the above quotation I will include it in its entirety The word with the article is then the subject whatever the order may be So in Jo 1 1 theos an ho logos the subject is perfectly clear Cf ho logos sarx egeneto Jo 1 14 It is true that ho theos an ho logos convertible terms would have been Sabellianism See also ho theos agape estin 1 Jo 4 16 God and love are not convertible terms any more than God and Logos or Logos and flesh Cf also hoi theristai angeloi eisin Mt 13 39 ho logos ho sos alatheia estin Jo 17 17 ho nomos hamartia Ro 7 7 The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea A T Robertson A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Broadman Press 1934 p 767 768 Note that Robertson translates the phrase the Word was God His argument is summed up well in the following passage A word should be said concerning the use and non use of the article in John 1 1 where a narrow path is safely followed by the author The Word was God It both God and Word were articular they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied If God were articular and Logos non articular the affirmation would be that God was Logos but not that the Logos was God As it is John asserts that in the Pre incarnate state the Logos was God though the Father was greater than the Son John 14 28 The Logos became flesh 1 14 and not the Father But the Incarnate Logos was really God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father 1 18 correct text A T Robertson The Minister and His Greek New Testament Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1977 pp 67 68 In light of Dr Robertson s comments it is indeed unbelievable that some will quote from the above section and try to intimate that Robertson felt that Jesus was less than the Father because he quoted John 14 28 A quick look at his comments on John 14 28 in Word Pictures in the New Testament volume 5 page 256 refutes this idea To recap Robertson says that 1 the translation of the phrase theos en ho logos is the Word was God 2 That the anarthrous theos is required for the meaning If the article were present this would teach Sabellianism as then theos and logos would be convertible terms 3 That the article before logos serves to point out the subject of the clause Many years ago I was at a fast food place with my then young family A Jehovah s Witness walked up and began a discussion When he ran into trouble his friend came over The friend said that A T Robertson writes that John 1 1 needs the article to make the Word equal to God That disturbed me so I went to my school library and looked up A T Robertson s grammar book I found the same thing as what I ve quoted above John is not saying the Word is exactly equal to God that they are interchangeable That would be Modallism or Sabellianism which says that God took on different modes at different times 1 The Father in the Old Testament 2 The Son while Jesus was alive and 3 The Holy Spirit after Jesus died God does not change modes He always is Father Son and Holy Spirit Having the article before θεος God would be very wrong My research really opened my eyes First I was impressed at how easily people can not only twist Scripture but also twist what others say about Scripture Second my understanding of Koine Christian theology and the brilliance of what John wrote grew dramatically It suddenly became clear to me why John could not include the article before θεος god The presence of the article would not be the trinitarian position John had to leave the article out He had no other choice I believe that if you understand this one fact about Koine and John 1 1 you will know that it is impossible to translate John 1 1c as the Word was a god Personally I m still amused at the irony of me receiving one of my deepest insights into the deity of Christ because of a conversation with a Jehovah s Witness Finally I have only dealt with the grammars referred to by JPA Nettelhorst and McWilliams give a comprehensive list of quotes from various grammarians many that are abused by Jehovah s Witnesses It is worth reading just to see the weight of support for the traditional interpretation and how their words can be twisted 5 O P Many early Christians support this reading and call other holy people gods JPA claims that many early Christian writings including Athanasius and Augustine call Other righteous persons and faithful angels gods or a god However JPA does not give a single reference for this claim I thus ignore the argument JPA also claims that Origen translates John 1 1c as the Word was a god She cites Origen s Commentary on John Book I Chapter 42 and Book II Chapter 3 I don t have a written copy of Origen s works I looked it up online and found this site http www earlychristianwritings com origen html In Book I chapter 42 I did not find anything about John 1 1c meaning the Word was a god I did find this passage near the end of the chapter We must observe then that the Logos is in the beginning that is in wisdom always Its being in wisdom which is called the beginning does not prevent it from being with God and from being God and it is not simply with God but is in the beginning in wisdom with God Sounds to me like Origen is saying the Logos always existed and is God In Book II Chapter 2 Origen has an extended discussion on the nature of the Word Logos as God It is not too long so I quote the entire chapter here I highlighted some significant passages We next notice John s use of the article in these sentences He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue In some cases he uses the article and in some he omits it He adds the article to the Logos but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things and omits it when the Logos is named God Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it We must enquire into this As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it so the Logos is the source of that reason Logos which dwells in every reasonable creature the reason which is in each creature is not like the former called par excellence The Logos Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion and who fall here into great perplexity They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name or they deny the divinity of the Son giving Him a separate existence of His own and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father so that they are separable from each other To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God Autotheos God of Himself and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father That they may know Thee the only true God but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity and is not to be called simply God with the article but rather God without article And thus the first born of all creation who is the first to be with God and to attract to Himself divinity is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him of whom God is the God as it is written The God of gods the Lord hath spoken and called the earth It was by the offices of the first born that they became gods for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty The true God then is The God and those who are formed after Him are gods images as it were of Him the prototype But the archetypal image again of all these images is the Word of God who was in the beginning and who by being with God is at all times God not possessing that of Himself but by His being with the Father and not continuing to be God if we should think of this except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father OK I ll admit I m a bit confused by everything Origen is saying He says that fear drives some into false doctrine so that they deny the divinity of the Son He then talks about the first born as having other gods beside him which sound like he sees Jesus as one of many gods However right after that he affirms that the Word is at all times God Confusing but Origen repeatedly calls the Word God In Book II Chapter 3 Origen seems to be defending his just stated belief in other gods Chapter 3 begins Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God but admitting other beings besides the true God who have become gods by having a share of God He again seems to affirm that the Logos is God Each fills the place of a fountain the Father is the fountain of divinity the Son of reason As then there are many gods but to us there is but one God the Father and many Lords but to us there is one Lord Jesus Christ so there are many Lgoi but we for our part pray that that one Lgos may be with us who was in the beginning and was with God God the Logos Later in Chapter 3 Origen says this And again there was the Logos with the article and the Logos without the article corresponding to God absolutely and a god and the Logoi in two ranks Perhaps this is what JPA is referring to I don t know since JPA does not give a specific reference only the entire chapter Again I am not sure what Origen means by this It is clear to me that even in this statement he talks of the Logos corresponding to God absolutely I agree that Origen brings in the idea of many lesser gods He also at times seems to say that God without the article is a lesser god Nonetheless he clearly affirms that the Logos is God many times I would not cite Origen as a strong supporter of the trinitarian position However I also do not see any way to say he supports the a god translation Once again I have only dealt with the writings JPA references Nettelhorst and McWilliams give a long list of quotes from early Christians showing what they thought of the trinity and the deity of Christ 6 Q R Philo views λογος word as the Son of God with God and a god but not the true God JPA claims that many that Jewish people in the time of Christ viewed λογος word transliterated logos as the Son of God with God and a god but not the true God She says the writings of Philo support this I do not know Philo so I can t comment in from personal knowledge JPA gives no reference so again there is no way I can specifically respond to her argument As part of this argument JPA asserts The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word Logos proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers were already familiar with First of all it is not true that John provided no further explanation of the Word Just a verse away John 1 3 says All things came into being by Him and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being John 1 3 says that the Word is the creator of everything From Genesis 1 we know that God is the one creator of everything To a Jew and anyone else who believes Genesis this means that the Word is God Even if John had not provided a nearby explanation JPA s is wrong when she asserts that John intended the Logos concept that his readers were already familiar with It is common for writers to begin with a general assertion and then provide details later Let s try JPA s assertion for Genesis 1 The Israelites of Moses time were coming out of Egypt They would have held an Egyptian view of God or gods Egyptians had no central God only a bunch of regional gods When Moses went up Mount Sinai most of the Israelites were happy to worship a calf They obviously held completely false views of God Yet Genesis 1 1 just introduces God without explanation In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth So by JPA s logic the writer of Genesis intends his readers to think that God is a calf Of course this is ridiculous The rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch describe who God really is Likewise John makes a general introduction and spends the rest of the book explaining and illustrating I did try to find some data on Philo by searching the internet I found an article on Wikipedia http en wikipedia org wiki Philo s view of God Under the Logos section it says Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also treating them as a single independent being which he designates Logos The Wikipedia article also says Philo drew from Heraclitus Stoicism and Plato Regarding the relation of the Logos to God he believed The Logos is a kind of shadow cast by God having the outlines but not the blinding light of the Divine Being When JPA makes its no further explanation assertion it implies John agrees with Philo that Logos is the divine shadow and holds the totality of divine power Is this really the Jehovah Witness position That would be new to me Does the rest of the Gospel of John and the rest of the New Testament affirm this position No they do not For what it s worth I believe John deliberately chose λογος word to confront both his Jewish and Hellenistic readers and challenge their philosophies He like Jesus chose provocative words words designed to surprise his readers and shake up their beliefs Apparently it worked Jesus was crucified John was exiled and Christians were often persecuted and misunderstood 7 S In John 17 1 3 Jesus says Father This is eternal life to know thee who alone art truly God JPA s throws in a quote from John 17 1 3 Father This is eternal life to know thee who alone art truly God She says this shows that Jesus is not God I assume JPA s argument is this Jesus says that the Father alone is God Therefore nobody else is God Therefore Jesus is not God This strictly speaking is not an argument about John 1 1c the subject of JPA Nonetheless it is an interesting assertion and deserves an answer First refer back to my overview that Jesus did not come to bring a religion but a relationship with God Relationships are not simple formulas or rules They are messy We cannot easily define all the boundaries Our lives have fuzzy edges and things difficult and even impossible to understand Jesus present things that do not follow simple rules and are hard to understand The whole reason for trinitarian theology is to try to understand something that is very confusing That said I can show several places where John presents Jesus as God John 1 18 No one has ever seen God but God the One and Only who is at the Father s side has made him known Jesus is speaking and calling himself God This verse is also interesting because the first God uses an anarthrous θεον god to refer to the one true God John 8 58 I tell you the truth Jesus answered before Abraham was born I am Here Jesus uses the Greek εγω ειμι In doing so he quotes the name God gives himself in Exodus 3 14 From about 250 BC to 150 BC Jewish scholars in Alexandria Egypt produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament It is called the Septuagint often abbreviated LXX septuagint is Latin meaning seventy and it is so named because tradition is that seventy scholars worked on it The Septuagint was in common use in at the time of Jesus The Septuagint uses the exact phrase Jesus uses εγω ειμι in Exodus 3 14 when God says I AM The Jews understood what Jesus meant as we see by their reaction in verse 59 At this they picked up stones to stone him John 10 28 33 I give them eternal life and they shall never perish no one can snatch them out of my hand My Father who has given them to me is greater than all no one can snatch them out of my Father s hand I and the Father are one Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him but Jesus said to them I have shown you many great miracles from the Father For which of these do you stone me We are not stoning you for any of these replied the Jews but for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be God Jesus in this passage refers to himself as one with the Father while also referring to the Father as separate from himself How can this be I m not sure but clearly Jesus sees himself as God yet different from the Father As I mention under Argument 4 anarthous θεον god is used for God at the end of the passage John 20 28 29 Thomas said to him My Lord and my God Then Jesus told him Because you have seen me you have believed blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed Thomas calls Jesus God Jesus does not correct him but instead states that Thomas believes and blesses those who believe like Thomas but without seeing We can only assume that Jesus approves of Thomas and us believing he is God How do we reconcile John 17 1 3 with Jesus repeatedly making himself equal with God I m not sure I m not even sure the trinitarian formula is completely correct I am sure Jesus claims to be God It is very clear I m still trying to understand the details 8 Compare the usage of θεος god with the usage of ανθρωπος man JPA compares the usage of θεος god with ανθρωπος man to show how the article affects the meaning of θεος god JPA states that when used with the article ανθρωπος man means a certain definite man Without the article it means a man She cites John 1 6 John 3 4 John 3 27 John 7 23 John 7 46 John 9 16 John 10 33 and John 16 21 I agree that JPA captures the normal translation of ανθρωπος man with and without the article I ll only bring up John 10 33 briefly at the end of this section However JPA make a subtle mistake She is trying to make a Greek to English translation rule As I say above we don t translate by making a bunch of Greek to English rules What we do is first decide the Greek meaning Then we decide how to best express that meaning in English The semantics of man in both English and Greek are simpler than the semantics of god This is because the word god can refer to the one supreme being God or it can refer to just a bunch of very powerful beings gods Saying Eric is a man or Eric is man carry much the same meaning Saying Eric is a god or Eric is God carry very different meanings We cannot simply compare the forms and patterns of usage of man with god It does not work JPA s formal comparison of ανθρωπος man and θεος god is invalid This can be confusing so let me illustrate the semantics of man When

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHST/Courses/Languages/JohnPrologueArticleResponse.html (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2013 Finance Report
    Apr 13 2 007 238 238 385 738 0 260 0 385 May 13 2 744 976 976 385 738 0 260 0 385 Jun 13 3 151 1 382 1 382 385 738 0 260 0 385 Jul 13 3 096 1 247 1 247 385 818 0 260 0 385 Aug 13 1 472 977 977 385 818 0 260 0 986 Sep 13 4 125 1 669 1 669 385 818 0 260 0 986 Oct 13 4 332 1 801 1 801 385 885 0 260 0 986 Nov 13 2 772 241 241 385 885 0 260 0 986 Here is the chart showing the General Fund balances income and expenses throughout the year Budget This table shows the how income and spending compare with the budget throughout the year The left hand column shows the budget categories and sub categories Next to it the Budget Column shows the monlthy budgeted amounts for each category The next columns show the income and spending for each month The Total YTD Column shows the total income and spending for the year to date The Budget YTD Column shows the amount budgeted for the year to date The Difference Column shows the difference between actual income and spending and the budget for the year to date The Annual Budget Column shows the yearly budget amounts Category Description Budget Jan 13 Feb 13 Mar 13 Apr 13 May 13 Jun 13 Jul 13 Aug 13 Sep 13 Oct 13 Nov 13 Total YTD Budget YTD Difference Actual Budget General income 7 299 6 092 6 726 8 562 6 766 6 277 6 723 5 718 4 691 9 685 7 372 6 455 75 067 80 285 5 218 87 584 Building Hazard Insurance 171 677 677 766 767 2 886 1 877 1 009 2 048 Maintenance 80 500 190 500 1 190 880 310 960 Mortgage 1 138 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 8 085 12 518 4 433 13 656 Property Tax 50 402 352 754 550 204 600 Supplies 8 0 92 92 100 Utilities 650 586 707 621 368 565 563 728 980 964 1 188 530 7 801 7 150 651 7 800 TOTAL Building 2 097 2 498 1 442 1 948 1 780 1 300 1 298 1 463 2 481 1 699 2 775 2 032 20 716 23 067 2 351 25 164 Business Expenses Worker s Comp 50 521 521 550 29 600 Office 68 7 47 342 464 183 281 200 Telephone 100 34 34 34 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 368 1 100 732 1 200 TOTAL Business Expenses 150 102 34 555 34 34 34 33 33 40 80 375 1 353 1 833 480 2 000 Ministry Adult 10 0 110 110 120 Children 10 0 110 110 120 Fellowship 30 0 330 330 360 Missions 80 72 60 64 86 68 64 68

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHCC/Finance/FY2013.php (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2012 Finance Report
    covers money taken in for things not budgeted such as Souper Bowl or the Lottie Moon offering Date QHCC Account General Gen Hold Parsonage Deacon Holding Youth Internet Temporary Dec 11 1 782 250 250 935 835 0 260 0 0 Jan 12 2 058 214 214 935 647 0 260 0 0 Feb 12 2 754 885 885 935 672 0 260 0 0 Mar 12 1 376 645 645 935 734 0 260 0 90 Apr 12 2 503 144 144 935 787 0 260 0 662 May 12 2 231 56 56 935 787 0 260 0 303 Jun 12 535 925 925 385 509 0 260 0 303 Jul 12 539 921 921 385 509 0 260 0 303 Aug 12 392 1 168 1 168 385 540 0 260 0 373 Sep 12 893 765 765 385 638 0 260 0 373 Oct 12 1 395 264 264 385 638 0 260 0 373 Nov 12 1 077 637 637 385 697 0 260 4 373 Dec 12 1 330 358 358 385 637 0 260 0 403 Here is the chart showing the General Fund balances income and expenses throughout the year Budget This table shows the how income and spending compare with the budget throughout the year The left hand column shows the budget categories and sub categories Next to it the Budget Column shows the monlthy budgeted amounts for each category The next columns show the income and spending for each month The Total YTD Column shows the total income and spending for the year to date The Budget YTD Column shows the amount budgeted for the year to date The Difference Column shows the difference between actual income and spending and the budget for the year to date The Annual Budget Column shows the yearly budget amounts Category Description Budget Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 Jun 12 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 Nov 12 Dec 12 Total YTD Budget YTD Difference Actual Budget General income 7 299 6 279 7 605 5 981 7 400 5 686 4 892 7 019 6 037 7 583 6 810 6 618 7 154 79 064 87 584 8 521 87 584 Building Hazard Insurance 171 632 667 677 677 2 652 2 048 604 2 048 Maintenance 80 220 143 363 960 597 960 Mortgage 1 138 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 8 085 13 656 5 571 13 656 Property Tax 50 402 416 818 600 218 600 Supplies 8 0 100 100 100 Utilities 650 554 353 696 510 534 673 930 1 073 960 861 504 7 649 7 800 151 7 800 TOTAL Building 2 097 1 289 1 720 1 431 2 131 1 412 1 408 2 342 1 808 1 695 1 940 1 239 1 151 19 567 25 164 5 597 25 164 Business Expenses Worker s Comp 50 518

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHCC/Finance/FY2012.php (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2011 Finance Report
    Fund covers money taken in for things not budgeted such as Souper Bowl or the Lottie Moon offering Date QHCC Account General Gen Hold Parsonage Deacon Holding Youth Internet Temporary 12 31 2010 1 704 122 935 581 0 260 0 50 1 704 1 31 2011 2 093 206 206 935 642 0 260 0 50 2 28 2011 3 009 1 081 1 081 935 683 0 260 0 50 3 31 2011 2 221 343 343 935 683 0 260 0 0 4 30 2011 3 038 1 108 1 108 935 735 0 260 0 0 5 31 2011 3 683 1 753 1 753 935 735 0 260 0 0 6 30 2011 3 789 1 812 1 812 935 782 0 260 0 0 7 31 2011 3 671 1 346 1 346 935 782 0 260 0 348 8 31 2011 2 285 265 265 935 825 0 260 0 0 9 30 2011 1 645 428 428 935 878 0 260 0 0 10 31 2011 2 880 807 807 935 878 0 260 0 0 11 30 2011 2 248 174 174 935 878 0 260 0 0 12 31 2011 1 782 250 250 935 837 0 260 0 0 Here is the chart showing the General Fund balances income and expenses throughout the year Budget This table shows the how income and spending compare with the budget throughout the year The left hand column shows the budget categories and sub categories Next to it the Budget Column shows the monlthy budgeted amounts for each category The next columns show the income and spending for each month The Total YTD Column shows the total income and spending for the year to date The Budget YTD Column shows the amount budgeted for the year to date The Difference Column shows the difference between actual income and spending and the budget for the year to date The Annual Budget Column shows the yearly budget amounts Category Description Budget Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Total YTD Budget YTD Difference Actual Budget General income 7 299 5 397 7 279 6 654 7 045 8 063 6 033 6 863 5 419 5 334 8 940 5 355 6 624 79 006 87 584 8 578 87 584 Building Hazard Insurance 171 603 603 632 667 2 503 2 048 455 2 048 Maintenance 80 380 380 960 580 960 Mortgage 1 138 1 724 600 1 800 600 600 600 600 600 1 000 727 743 9 594 13 656 4 062 13 656 Property Tax 50 516 43 344 903 600 303 600 Supplies 8 0 100 100 100 Utilities 650 510 334 85 381 529 523 468 770 887 896 776 601 625 7 302 7 800 498 7 800 TOTAL Building 2 097 510 2 661 1 497 2 329 1

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHCC/Finance/FY2011.php (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2010 Finance Report
    because Quartz Hill School of Theology is responsible for our DSL fees and is behind in reimbursing QHCC The Temporary Fund covers money taken in for things not budgeted such as Souper Bowl or the Lottie Moon offering Date QHCC Account General Gen Hold Parsonage Deacon Holding Youth DSL Temporary 12 31 2009 7 550 5 480 1 180 936 835 4 300 320 0 10 1 31 2010 6 157 3 828 228 936 894 3 600 320 0 210 2 28 2010 5 532 3 177 277 936 940 2 900 320 0 190 3 31 2010 4 348 1 915 15 936 1 003 1 900 260 0 220 4 30 2010 3 031 952 52 936 868 900 260 0 0 5 31 2010 2 739 690 690 936 838 0 260 0 0 6 30 2010 2 803 687 687 936 904 0 260 0 0 7 31 2010 2 094 478 478 936 404 0 260 0 0 8 31 2010 2 251 622 622 936 477 0 260 60 0 9 30 2010 1 673 15 15 936 477 0 260 0 0 10 31 2010 3 919 2 230 2 230 936 477 0 260 0 0 11 30 2010 1 695 57 57 936 541 0 260 0 0 12 31 2010 1 760 82 82 936 581 0 260 0 50 Here is the chart showing the General Fund balances income and expenses throughout the year Budget This table shows the how income and spending compare with the budget throughout the year The left hand column shows the budget categories and sub categories Next to it the Budget Column shows the monlthy budgeted amounts for each category The next columns show the income and spending for each month The Total YTD Column shows the total income and spending for the year to date The Budget YTD Column shows the amount budgeted for the year to date The Difference Column shows the difference between actual income and spending and the budget for the year to date The Annual Budget Column shows the yearly budget amounts Category Description Budget Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 May 10 Jun 10 Jul 10 Aug 10 Sep 10 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Total YTD Budget YTD Difference Actual Budget General income 7 299 6 163 6 021 5 120 5 293 5 316 4 031 6 341 6 231 5 684 7 842 5 109 5 973 69 123 87 584 18 461 87 584 Building Hazard Insurance 171 501 501 568 568 2 137 2 048 89 2 048 Maintenance 80 200 300 500 960 460 960 Mortgage 1 138 1 124 1 124 1 124 1 124 1 124 1 124 600 1 124 8 468 13 656 5 188 13 656 Property Tax 50 516 516 600 84 600 Supplies 8 50 50 100 50 100 Utilities 650 850 544 410 379 474 270 448 358 1 059

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHCC/Finance/FY2010.php (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •