Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

Hi @Brian2

I like your point a lot. It is not the word "Character" (χαρακτηρ) in Leviticus 13:28 which provides any exactness (if one claims "exactness" is to be found at all in Lev 13:28).

IF anyone wants to argue that "exactness" comes from some other principle in Leviticus 13:28 (such as "change"), they are welcome to claim and demonstrate this for readers.

The Jews themselves, found no exactness and instead, they found much, much room for debate and elaboration as to what this text could possibly mean in the Jewish talmud. So, although the Jews found no "exactness" in the text, I am not sure why some christians feel like they did find "exactness" where the jews themselves did not..

However, I do agree, that the word "Character" itself, never implied "exactness".

Clear
ειφυσιακφιω

Lev 13:28 But if the bright spot remain stationary, and be not spread in the skin, but [the sore] should be dark, it is a scar of inflammation; and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the mark of the inflammation.

When I look at a Septuagint interlinear of Lev 13:28 I presume that charakter is translated as 'mark' and it does appear to carry with it the meaning this particular type of scar exactly represents an inflamation. Not that the shape is exactly the same in each case but that if the bright spot did not move or spread in the skin and should be dark it is that which shows precisely that it is the mark of a clean inflammation and not unclean.
I guess it is good that God could be precise in these things and not leave people guessing and making mistakes.

 

[Brian2]

The term--all creation, proves 100% it is before anything else was created.

I'm not sure where "all creation" comes in to it. Do you mean "of all creation"? However I showed you why this does not have to mean that the prehuman Jesus was created. So no it does not prove anything about the prehuman Jesus having been created.
On the other hand "all things were created through him and for him" proves 100% that the prehuman Jesus was not created. The Watchtower knows this and so has to change the Bible so that it seems to fit their doctrine. You know how they have changed it I presume,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by adding the word "other" into the passage 4 times, and they have even taken the brackets away (other) and made it appear that "other" is part of the original Greek text.

Yes the IMAGE of God. An image is NEVER the real thing. Jesus lives 24/7 to do his Fathers will, as do his followers( Matthew 7:21)-- one in purpose.

Yes the Son is the image of His Father. Sounds right to me. The son is the :
Heb 1:3.......... and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power.
The Old Testament asks, "Who is like you Lord?" and the New Testament answers, the Son is exactly like the invisible God.
You are thinking of the pre human Jesus as if He is a created being, one created to be like His Father, but He is the Son from eternity and is exactly like His Father.
When I look at what you said "An image is NEVER the real thing." it reminds me of the JW doctrine of resurrection which actually does not mean resurrection but means "re-creation". So someone is re-created in the image of the one who died. So now you agree with me that an image is NEVER the real thing. How come you would not say that if we were talking about the resurrection?
But of course don't get me wrong I am not saying that the Son is the Father.

 

[kjw47]

Again, you are misrepresenting what both the Trinitarian concept actually is and also what the Trinitarian-oriented churches tend to believe. As the saying goes, "You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts".

Thus, what you post above tells me that the Governing Body has so thoroughly brainwashed you so as to believe a falsehood that has been corrected here numerous times.

You are wrong. The teachings of Jesus prove who is who.

 

[kjw47]

I'm not sure where "all creation" comes in to it. Do you mean "of all creation"? However I showed you why this does not have to mean that the prehuman Jesus was created. So no it does not prove anything about the prehuman Jesus having been created.
On the other hand "all things were created through him and for him" proves 100% that the prehuman Jesus was not created. The Watchtower knows this and so has to change the Bible so that it seems to fit their doctrine. You know how they have changed it I presume,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by adding the word "other" into the passage 4 times, and they have even taken the brackets away (other) and made it appear that "other" is part of the original Greek text.



Yes the Son is the image of His Father. Sounds right to me. The son is the :
Heb 1:3.......... and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power.
The Old Testament asks, "Who is like you Lord?" and the New Testament answers, the Son is exactly like the invisible God.
You are thinking of the pre human Jesus as if He is a created being, one created to be like His Father, but He is the Son from eternity and is exactly like His Father.
When I look at what you said "An image is NEVER the real thing." it reminds me of the JW doctrine of resurrection which actually does not mean resurrection but means "re-creation". So someone is re-created in the image of the one who died. So now you agree with me that an image is NEVER the real thing. How come you would not say that if we were talking about the resurrection?
But of course don't get me wrong I am not saying that the Son is the Father.

Centuries ago the errors were added. All can see that trinity based translations teach 2 different Gods. Paul teaching who God is-1Corinthians 8:6--There is ONE God to all, the Father.
And its hard to get by the facts that the Israelites from Moses on up served and serve a single being God-YHVH(Jehovah)-- The God taught to Jesus when he attended the Israelite places of worship. Do you think Jesus would attend a religion serving a non existent God? A single being God? If God were a trinity? Jesus teaches that God- John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 4:22-24-- a single being God-He called him( Father)-the ONLY TRUE GOD-one who sent Jesus( John 5:30) at John 17:1-6,26. Verse 6= YHVH(Jehovah) --26= YHVH(Jehovah)
Believe Jesus.

 

[Oeste]

A) CLEARS CLAIM REGARDING THE USE OF “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS

Clear said Regarding Leviticus 13:28 : “The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. NO EXACTNESS is implied. (bold is mine)

That’s correct and very astute Clear. The question is: Why are you bringing up Leviticus 13:28? Χαρακτηρ is NOT interpreted as “character” or “exact character” in Leviticus 13:28. It’s translated as “mark”. As stated previously:

We were discussing the Greek word "Χαρακτηρ” (charaktḗr) which can mean multiple things besides “character”. Also, "Χαρακτηρ” is not used as “character” in Leviticus but as a mark made by an engraver’s tool.

I've stated this several times.

B) OESTES ORIGINAL CLAIM THAT LEVITICUS 13:28 HAD EXACTNESS IN DIFFERENTIATING LEPROSY FROM NON LEPROSY

Absolutely! The Levitical laws were very specific, allowing priests to determine exactly who had leprosy and who did not.

We're making great progress here!

Oeste claimed :

#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”

#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)

EXACTLY, @Clear! I’m glad we have that cleared up but it’s pretty clear you do not understand Leviticus or how “Χαρακτηρ or “λέπρας” is being used there.


Let’s go back to the Greek word Χαρακτηρ. When you use this word in Leviticus it means “mark” and not “character” or “exact character”, so NO exactness is implied. When you use this same word at Hebrews 1:3 exactness is implied.

This is because Χαρακτηρ has more than one meaning. Paul is using it metaphorically as an impress made from a die with Divine hands in Hebrews 1 and the author of Leviticus is using it as a mark (at least that’s how the Hebrew authors translated it into the Septuagint).

When you ask me about leprosy, you are no longer asking me about Χαρακτηρ. You are actually asking me about the Greek word “λέπρας” or lepra. When the priest makes a diagnosis of leprosy exactness is implied because the priest is following the Levitical code to determine who has it, who doesn’t, who is clean and who’s unclean.

So what I said was not contradictory; it was complimentary.

 

[Oeste]

C) OESTES CLAIMS FAILED A SIMPLE TEST

Oeste could not use Leviticus 13:28 TO EVEN DIFFERENTIATE LEPROSY FROM SIMPLE ECZEMA

Absolutely Clear, nor would I even try. I'm not a Levitical priest, and I'm certainly not a medical clinician who use Leviticus to diagnose patients.

I also know that the "leprosy" of Leviticus has nothing to do with modern leprosy of today.

But just to put this nonsense to rest, IF eczema existed back in the day, and IF it existed back then as it does now, and IF this was something inflicted upon the Jews then it would be "covered" or addressed under Leviticus 13:39.

See how easy that was? Another strawman unravels.

Oeste now claims : “You simply asked how a medical clinician might diagnose leprosy in a young girl using Leviticus. “

Yes, that 's what you asked and I answered it for you. I wish you would do the same courtesy for my questions sometimes. For instance, I'm still waiting for that criteria on when we can and can't use dynamic equivalence, and what makes "Lord" for "rock" okay, but "exact" with "representation" a non-starter.

No, I did not ask how to diagnose leprosy.

But of course you did @Clear. Did you forget? Here is is again for you, from post #765:

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

Since you claim the verse describes “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”, you can help me out?

Please read your argument CAREFULLY @Clear. There is no mention of eczema. The only skin lesion here is leprosy and absolutely no request for a differential diagnosis.

Your request at this point is whether you, as a medical technician, can diagnose the child's skin lesions as leprosy using the book of Leviticus. NO MENTION OF ECZEMA. This is post 765 and "eczema" doesn't pop up until #772.

I asked you to put your claims to the test by using the “exact” information in Leviticus to differentiate leprosy from a skin lesion I saw.

This makes absolutely no sense @Clear!

Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease that CAUSES SKIN LESIONS. I have no idea what you saw, except you telling me it might have been leprosy! This is your imagination, your scenario, where you get to make up all the symptoms and all the correct "diagnoses". I told you would prefer not to play in your imaginary, Clear "gets to make up any fact he wants" game.

You could not use Leviticus and instead, you were forced to turn to modern medical literature.

I gave you the correct information Clear. As a medical technician you consult the AMA or whatever board certified you as a clinician. You follow CDC guidelines. If you're tempted to use Leviticus you put the book away because the leprosy there does NOT match leprosy in our modern age.

Your claims about “exactness” in Leviticus failed this simple test.

I'm sorry you feel this way Clear, but it wasn't me, it was your test. It never got off the drawing board. It failed in trials. It went kaput.

The leprosy in Leviticus is a spiritual and not a medical leprosy.

If you still think it was a difficult test, I can give you another very, very, very simple example and you can try to use your claimed “exactness” in Leviticus to EITHER differentiate leprosy OR differentiate between spiritual cleanliness from cleanliness.

I've already declined this in my last post, remember?:

I strongly suspect you’re about to introduce new facts or criteria as if they were already there. This will allow you to build new strawmen into an imaginary scenario where you define and establish all the rules.

Admittedly this is just my unfounded suspicion. It’s possible you were not planning to do this but after two strawmen I think you’ll understand my reluctance to engage in that kind of story building. So I much rather stick to your original scenario: You’re a medical clinician looking to use Leviticus to diagnose leprosy (nothing else) in a young girl.

​

I guess my "unfounded suspicion" wasn't so unfounded at all.

 

[Oeste]

D) OESTES NEW CLAIM THAT MEDICAL LITERATURE IS NEEDED IN SIMPLE CASES

Oeste said : “If you’re a medical clinician could you give us any valid reason why you wouldn’t turn to medical literature?”

This silly assumption is quite naïve and ignorant. Certain things are simple.

Naïve and ignorant??

For example :

If you are a teenager with a simple pimple on your forehead, your dermatologist will NOT need to “turn to medical literature” to diagnose a pimple.

It is simple pattern recognition.

You are too funny Clear! In my last post I warned our readers you were going to come up with another strawman scenario and here it is!!

However, I am thoroughly enjoying our conversation. Perhaps you can indulge my naivete and ignorance a bit more??

I have a great idea! Let's just forget the naïve and ignorant part you mentioned, and then we'll forget the part I mentioned about the imaginary scenarios where you get to make up all the rules.

Now we just run and play with it...

First, you have once again moved the goal posts. We were talking about leprosy. Now what you want to talk about is whether a dermatologist needs to consult medical literature for any "diagnosis" that pops into your head.

Second, you mention a dermatologist. A dermatologist is not a family practitioner. He or she is a specialist. We are asking how a dermatologist diagnoses a pimple. So how did the dermatologist come up with a diagnosis of "pimple" when there is no diagnosis of "pimple" that the dermatologist can make?

All the diagnoses a doctor can make are listed in version 10 of the International Classification of Diseases.

"Pimple" isn't one of them.

However we need to move beyond this dubious dermatologist (how much is he going to charge us anyways??) and his diagnosis. Your primary care physician sent you to the specialist because he or she was concerned about the pimple, or you made the appointment directly because you suspect it's a lot more than a simple pimple.

Your dermatologist will determine if that red bump on your skin is a pimple, folliculitis, rosacea, staph or skin cancer or something else entirely. He may ask if you are taking certain medications to see if you're having a reaction. He may ask about your emotional or mental health to determine if you are under stress, anxiety, or have reduced self esteem. He will use his experience, acumen and consult with medical literature if necessary to determine if this is just a pimple or not.

What your dermatologist will NOT do is turn to the book of Leviticus to make his or her diagnosis, which of course moves us back to where the goal posts were in the first place.

See how easy that was? I'm afraid this ride is over too.

 

[Oeste]

E) SHIFTING CLAIMS - BACKING AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF “EXACTNESS”

Oeste originally claimed regarding Lev 13:28 :
““I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not.
This EXACTNESS helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (bold and underline are Clears)

After the failure of this claim we can see the backing away from this original claim regarding Lev 13:28.

I really think you need to rethink this Clear. My argument is alive and well. It's your strawman that has died.

Oeste now says : “I'm still not sure why you think "exactness" needs to be implied.”

Did you ever notice that when we were discussing χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3 I stated exactness was implied, and how I never stated χαρακτηρ implied "exactness" in Leviticus?

Also, did you never notice that I stated the priests could determine exactly who had leprosy and who did not?

Did you also notice that the Greek word for mark in Leviticus and the Greek word for leprosy are different?

If you notice these things then you'll know why I stated "I'm still not sure why you think "exactness" needs to be implied" especially since I was referring to Leviticus when I said it.

I NEVER thought the word “character” meant “exact character”.

Yes, we know that. It's just that every dictionary, concordance and lexicon disagrees with you. But what would they know. They're probably naïve and ignorant also.

BTW, I have another question. Does the Mormon church agree with you about "exact"? I can understand why they would take that stand, but I'm not understanding exactly how they might object to it.

However, If you are now admitting “character” is NOT “exact Character” then I have always agreed and this has been my point all along.

No, no, no. I could agree for the sake of being "agreeable" but then we would both be wrong.

 

[Oeste]

F) OFFERING NEW THEORIES WHEN PRIOR ONES DON’T WORK (Backing away from “exactness” )

You give me WAY too much credit here @Clear

This is not some "new" theory from me, it's just a new theory to you.

I'm not telling you anything that the historic Christian church hasn't said already.

Lets look at your new claim.
Oeste now claims : “However I do see Leviticus 13 as helping a priest determine what lesions mark leprosy and what does not. (Post #827)

Your new claim is different.

Nah, it's the same. I'm referring to leprosy here. It helps the priest determine exactly what lesions mark leprosy and what does not. I've been saying this for a while now.

G) REGARDING YET ANOTHER NEW CLAIM OF DETERMINING “SPIRITUAL LEPROSY”


This New Theory is different than your original claim concerning “EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” or I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” (capitals and underline are mine - Clear)

No it's the SAME claim Clear. The leprosy in Leviticus has ALWAYS been spiritual. It's called "Spiritual" or "Biblical Leprosy".

SPIRITUAL LEPROSY IS NOT MODERN LEPROSY! THIS IS NOTHING "NEW".​

If you are now offering a new theory that says the text can tell the priest “exactly” when a person has “spiritual leprosy” based on a skin lesion,

It's NEW TO YOU and not anyone else @Clear. If you are not sure about this, go to someone you trust and ask them about the leprosy found in Leviticus and modern leprosy. They are not the same.

You are free to describe this new theory in detail to support your claim that “Character” implies “exactness”.

WHOA! I NEVER stated Character implied exactness in Leviticus. You're either not reading what I post or you're simply misrepresenting what I do post. It's in Hebrews 1:3. The exactness in Leviticus has to do with LEPROSY! The Priest can tell who has it and who does not with EXACTNESS.

The instructions regarding LEPROSY are very detailed and EXACTING. They had to be in order for it to have worked as well as it did.

F) YET ANOTHER NEW CLAIM THAT LEVITICUS 13:28 IS DESCRIBING A SKIN LESION CAUSED BY AN ENGRAVING TOOL???

Oeste now claims : “…, "Χαρακτηρ” is not used as “character” in Leviticus but as a mark made by an engraver’s tool.” (Post #829)

This new theory seems a bit bizarre.

I highly doubt Leviticus was discussing the “exactness” of differentiating leprosy from lesions made by “an engraver’s tool”.

Apparently because you've never read Leviticus.

If you had, you would see it talks about burns, and yes, you can get those from an engravers tool.

It's bizarre to you, but not to folk who have actually read and studied it.

Oeste, “If a Levitical priest determines you have spiritual leprosy, then you still have spiritual leprosy, “ (#828)

This New Theory is different than your original claim concerning “EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” or I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” (capitals and underline are mine - Clear)

I fail to see how this is different. If a Levitical priest says you have leprosy according to Leviticus, then you have leprosy regardless of what your primary care or dermatologist says.

Likewise if your primary care or dermatologist says you have leprosy as a result of a skin biopsy, then you have leprosy, regardless of what the Levitical priest says.

Both can determine if you have leprosy with exactness.

It's all very simple, really.

We have two different nomenclatures, two different diagnoses, and two different domains Clear. I'm repeating myself endlessly here.

 

[Oeste]

Lev 13:28 But if the bright spot remain stationary, and be not spread in the skin, but [the sore] should be dark, it is a scar of inflammation; and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the mark of the inflammation.

When I look at a Septuagint interlinear of Lev 13:28 I presume that charakter is translated as 'mark' and it does appear to carry with it the meaning this particular type of scar exactly represents an inflamation. Not that the shape is exactly the same in each case but that if the bright spot did not move or spread in the skin and should be dark it is that which shows precisely that it is the mark of a clean inflammation and not unclean.
I guess it is good that God could be precise in these things and not leave people guessing and making mistakes.

Exactly right @Brian2, thank you.

 

[Brian2]

Centuries ago the errors were added. All can see that trinity based translations teach 2 different Gods. Paul teaching who God is-1Corinthians 8:6--There is ONE God to all, the Father.
And its hard to get by the facts that the Israelites from Moses on up served and serve a single being God-YHVH(Jehovah)-- The God taught to Jesus when he attended the Israelite places of worship. Do you think Jesus would attend a religion serving a non existent God? A single being God? If God were a trinity? Jesus teaches that God- John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 4:22-24-- a single being God-He called him( Father)-the ONLY TRUE GOD-one who sent Jesus( John 5:30) at John 17:1-6,26. Verse 6= YHVH(Jehovah) --26= YHVH(Jehovah)
Believe Jesus.

Are you going to answer my posts or just repeat your posts?
If you want to deny that Jesus is God then answer my posts otherwise Thomas is correct when he calls Jesus "My Lord and my God".
Imagine a Jew in Jesus day saying that to anyone. Blasphemy right? Yes.

 

[metis]

You are wrong. The teachings of Jesus prove who is who.

Nope.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons:[2][3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5]...

While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God[6] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas, including Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5.[7][9] Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all", while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one"[10] has led theologians across history in attempting to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Eventually, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were brought together to form the doctrine of the Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance. The doctrine of the Trinity was used to oppose alternative views of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[11]... -- Trinity - Wikipedia [especially note the underlined parts]

Now, are you going to believe in the Gospels or what your Governing Body has told you?

 

[Muffled]

"Everlasting Father" is a reference to God the Father, thus not the Son.

I believe one can't separate the Father from the Son in essence only in perspective and position.

 

[Muffled]

Nope.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons:[2][3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5]...

While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God[6] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas, including Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5.[7][9] Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all", while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one"[10] has led theologians across history in attempting to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Eventually, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were brought together to form the doctrine of the Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance. The doctrine of the Trinity was used to oppose alternative views of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[11]... -- Trinity - Wikipedia [especially note the underlined parts]

Now, are you going to believe in the Gospels or what your Governing Body has told you?

I believe by that definition there is only one person in the Trinity.

 

[Muffled]

Again, the Trinitarian concept does not posit Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God but instead are of God. IOW, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are believed to be of the "essence" of God, and remember, "essence" means this: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character".

I believe in a sense of essence Jesus can't be God because Jesus is God and a body the same thing is true of the Holy Spirit. However as an understanding of the Spirit in Jesus and us then it is God not simply of Him. It seems rather farcical to me to pay attention to the body and ignore God who is within.

I believe the problem of saying: "of God" is that it divides God when He can't be divided. Granted we have a more difficult time understanding that omnipresence does not mean diversity.

 

[metis]

I believe by that definition there is only one person in the Trinity.

Then either you didn't read it or you chose to ignore even the parts I underlined.

 

[metis]

I believe in a sense of essence Jesus can't be God because Jesus is God and a body the same thing is true of the Holy Spirit. However as an understanding of the Spirit in Jesus and us then it is God not simply of Him. It seems rather farcical to me to pay attention to the body and ignore God who is within.

I believe the problem of saying: "of God" is that it divides God when He can't be divided. Granted we have a more difficult time understanding that omnipresence does not mean diversity.

The concept uses "essence", thus Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God but are not literally God the Father, especially since the Gospels point out differences, such as when Jesus said he didn't know when the end of times would be as the Father only knows that.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2, @kjw47 , and @Oeste


1) THE INITIAL CLAIM THAT THE SINGLE WORD "CHARACTER" IN LEVITICUS MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER" FAILED
Am I to understand that you are admitting that the word for “mark” or “Character” does NOT mean “exact mark” or “exact character”?
If so. I agree.
The specific Greek word for “Character” never mean “exact character”. That has always been my point.




2) THE NEW CLAIM REGARDING "EXACTNESS" OR "PRECISENESS" IN LEVITICUS 13:28

Brian2 said : “Not that the shape is exactly the same in each case but that if the bright spot did not move or spread in the skin and should be dark it is that which shows precisely that it is the mark of a clean inflammation and not unclean”


If you are claiming the text indicates “preciseness” in this text due to a change in the “mark” or “character”, this is a different claim.

I don’t have any interest in this new claim other than to remark that the Jews themselves deny preciseness in the Talmud.
The Jewish Mishna describes “doubful” cases are (generally), not to be considered unclean (Ḥul. 9b et seq.).

Your description from Leviticus lacks preciseness (Where are you getting the "preciseness" or the "exactness" from? For example :

You did not tell us whether the hair was plucked from the lesion before the priest saw the lesion. (If there is white hair the person is declared unclean, it the hair was plucked out before examination then the person is clean (Neg. viii. 4).

For example, you say preciseness lies in the fact that the lesion should be “dark”.

So, how dark should it be?
Should the darkness be “not white”, or “slightly tan” or “tan”, or “brownish”, or “dark brown”.
Does the lesion simply need to be darker than the surrounding skin?
What if the person has light colored skin?
What if they are of very dark skin?

DEGREES OF DARK AND LIGHT
There are degrees of darkness just as the Jews had four major degrees of whiteness.
For example, Talmudic descriptions of “whitness” describe four different degrees of whiteness. The whiteness of snow is "Baheret". The whiteness of lime. The white of an egg and the whiteness of white wool. (Additionally, the Mishnah describes the presence of intermediate shades)

What, “precise” shade of “darkness” does Leviticus 13:28 refer to?

You also did not tell us precisely where the lesion was and this was important since an ulcer on the extremities did not render a person unclean (Neg vi. 7)
You did not tell us precisely the size of the lesion. A bleeding ulcer must be of the size of a lentil in order to render one unclean (A Neg viii. 2)

You do not actually need to answer any of these questions for me. I just want to raise some questions so that you know that making a claim regarding "exactness" or "preciseness" requires some data. If you are correct or incorrect on this new claim you are making, it is fine with me either way.

MY DISAGREEMENT WAS WITH THE ORIGINAL CLAIM THAT "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER".

"Character" simply meant "Character.

​

I am glad that you have abandoned the claim that “Character” or “Mark” means “exact character” or “exact mark”. This was the basis of our debate.



3) DUELING TEXTUAL CHANGES IN HEB 1:3 AND COL 1:16 – AVOIDING HYPOCRISY

JUSTIFYING ONES OWN CHANGED TEXT WHILE CRITICIZING ANOTHERS CHANGED TEXT.

Hi @Brian2 and @kjw47

Brian2 says of the Jehovahs Witnesses : “You know how they have changed it I presume,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by adding the word "other" into the passage 4 times, and they have even taken the brackets away (other) and made it appear that "other" is part of the original Greek text. (post #842)

Brian2, your religion changed Hebrews 1:3 to read according to it’s theology.
The Jehovahs Witnesses have changed Col 1:16 to read according to their theology.

How do you justify criticizing Jehovahs witnesses for simply doing what your religion has done? (i.e. changing text to read according to it's own theology)


Hi @Oeste

4) AGREEMENT THAT "CHARACTER" CAN MEAN "MARK"

Oeste said : “That’s correct and very astute Clear. The question is: Why are you bringing up Leviticus 13:28? Χαρακτηρ is NOT interpreted as “character” or “exact character” in Leviticus 13:28. It’s translated as “mark”. (Post #845).

It is fine with me to translate the Greek word Χαρακτηρ (Character) as a “mark”.
Whether "Character" is translated as "Character" or "Mark" or "seal" or "impression" is fine.

The problem is if you claim “mark” means an “exact mark". “Exactness” is not implied in either rendition.

“Character” still means “Character” and not “exact Character”. If you render Χαρακτηρ as “mark”, then still, no “exactness” is implied.



5) REGARDING OESTES CLAIM THAT LEVITICUS 13:28 TELLS ONE EXACTLY WHAT DOES, AND EXACTLY WHAT DOES NOT MARK LEPROSY.

Oestes original claim was #1 : “I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819) (capital and underline is mine)

Oestes original claim was #2 : “This EXACTNESS helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819) (capital and underline are mine)



A) THIS CLAIM FAILED THE SIMPLEST TEST.

IT COULD NOT TELL US WHAT IS “NOT LEPROSY”

Clear asked : I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl….
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
Oeste was unable to use Leviticus to tell me that this girls eczema was not leprosy.


B) THE RESPONSE TO THE FAILURE OF THE CLAIM

Oeste then claimed : “You simply asked how a medical clinician might diagnose leprosy in a young girl using Leviticus. “

Clear responded : No, I did not ask how to diagnose leprosy.

Oeste responded : “But of course you did @Clear.”

Read my request sentence again. I said : “... tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was NOT leprosy.” (capital is mine)


I was NOT trying to diagnose leprosy. The lesion was obviously NOT leprosy. It was OBVIOUS that it was simple eczema.

I asked to know that, if, (as you claimed), leviticus was so "exact" in distinguishing leprosy from non-leprosy, what in leviticus tells me that the lesion WAS NOT LEPROSY.

Read it again…..”...NOT leprosy”.


C) MIND READING AN AUTHORS INTENT DOES NOT WORK IN TRANSLATION.

POOR READING DOES NOT WORK IN UNDERSTANDING AN AUTHORS INTENT
So, we’ve already learned that your suggestion that we can "mind read" an authors intent and use that as an accurate translation doesn't work.

We now also see that gaining meaning by not reading the actual text of a writer doesn’t work either.

Since I was never trying to diagnose leprosy, all of your references to modern medical literature were irrelevant. The claim to “exactness” remains a failed claim.

We are left, after all of these posts with the greek word "Character" still meaning "Character" and it does not mean "Exact Character" without adding the adjective "Exact" to it.


Clear
εισεειακακω

 

[Brian2]

Hi

[B][U][SIZE=4]1) THE INITIAL CLAIM THAT THE SINGLE WORD "CHARACTER" IN LEVITICUS MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER" FAILED[/SIZE][/U][/B]
[SIZE=4]Am I to understand that you are admitting that the word for “mark” or “Character” does NOT mean “exact mark” or “exact character”?
If so. I agree.
The specific Greek word for “Character” never mean “exact character”. That has always been my point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=4]

I don't mind, but the meaning in Heb 1:3 implies exactness and so is translated that way.[/SIZE]
[B][U][SIZE=4]
[QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"]2) THE NEW CLAIM REGARDING "EXACTNESS" OR "PRECISENESS" IN LEVITICUS 13:28[/QUOTE][/SIZE][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"][/quote][/U][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"][/quote][/B][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"]

[COLOR=#ff0000][B][SIZE=4]Brian2 said : “Not that the shape is exactly the same in each case but that if the bright spot did not move or spread in the skin and should be dark it is that which shows precisely that it is the mark of a clean inflammation and not unclean”[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]
[SIZE=4]
If you are claiming the text indicates “preciseness” in this text due to a change in the “mark” or “character”, this is a different claim.[/SIZE][/QUOTE][SIZE=4]

I don't really consider myself a part of the debate between you and Oeste. I was just pointing out what I saw in Lev 13:28. [/SIZE]

[U][B][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"][/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"][/quote][/U][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"]"Character" simply meant "Character[U].[/U]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[SIZE=4]I am glad that you have abandoned the claim that “Character” or “Mark” means “exact character” or “exact mark”. This was the basis of our debate.[/SIZE][/QUOTE][SIZE=4]

Certainly is the correct translation is in Heb 1:3 is "impress" or "imprint" then exactness is implied.

[/SIZE][B][U][SIZE=4]3) DUELING TEXTUAL CHANGES IN HEB 1:3 AND COL 1:16 – AVOIDING HYPOCRISY[/SIZE][/U][/B]

[B][U][SIZE=4]JUSTIFYING ONES OWN CHANGED TEXT WHILE CRITICIZING ANOTHERS CHANGED TEXT.[/SIZE][/U][/B]
[SIZE=4]
[B][U][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"][/QUOTE][/U][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"][/quote][/B][QUOTE="Clear, post: 6931415, member: 15119"]Hi [USER=68079]@Brian2 and @kjw47
[/quote][/SIZE]

Brian2 says of the Jehovahs Witnesses : “You know how they have changed it I presume,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by adding the word "other" into the passage 4 times, and they have even taken the brackets away (other) and made it appear that "other" is part of the original Greek text. (post #842)

Brian2, your religion changed Hebrews 1:3 to read according to it’s theology.
The Jehovahs Witnesses have changed Col 1:16 to read according to their theology.

How do you justify criticizing Jehovahs witnesses for simply doing what your religion has done? (i.e. changing text to read according to it's own theology)

I have heard this sort of argument from Jehovah's Witnesses who seem to want to justify the Watchtower's changing of scripture by pointing to what they claim is a change of scripture on the part of Christendom.
But of course what they call Christendom is not just one authority. Translators come from diverse opinions and are individuals or small groups. I cannot justify all translations from "Christendom". I also cannot justify the New World Translation. I see no hypocrisy there. If I did, then it would mean that anyone from Christendom who criticised the New World Translation is a hypocrite.


[/user]

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2

Brian2 said : "... the meaning in Heb 1:3 implies exactness and so is translated that way." (post #859)

As we have seen, the source text itself does not imply exactness.
Since the text itself does not imply exactness, where does the feeling that the text implies "exactness" come from?


READERS TEND TO SEE THEIR OWN THEOLOGY INTO A TEXT. TRANSLATORS DO THE SAME.

While some English translations added the word “exact” to Hebrews 1:3 and while the New World Translation added “other” to Col 1:16, still, there is no source Greek text that reads “exact” or “other” in these verses

The point is that it is not the “text” that “implies exactness” in Heb 1:3, and it is not the text that implies “other” in Col 1:16 but rather it is the theology of the translator or the reader that adds meaning to the text which is not in the text.

Thus, when you say “I was just pointing out what I saw in Lev 13:28.”, you are not telling us what is in the text, but what is in your mind when you read the text. Like all of us, you see your own theology in the text.

One reader suggested that the translator should read the mind of the writer and add words to the text so that the text says what the translator (or reader) thinks the writer should have said or meant to say instead of what the text says.


Brian2 said : "Certainly is the correct translation is in Heb 1:3 is "impress" or "imprint" then exactness is implied." (Post #859)

We’ve been through this before and you are simply repeating your prior claim. The actual Koine greek word "χαρακτηρ" in the many example from early Koine literature did not imply "exactness".

While the Greek word Χαρακτηρ (eng “Character”) can mean “Impression“ and “imprint“ and “icon“ and “picture“ and “character“ and “nature“ and “mark“ and “lesion” and “person” and “characteristic” (and many more words), none of these words alone mean “exact Impression“ or “exact imprint“ or “exact icon“ or “exact picture“ or “exact character“ or “exact nature“ or “exact mark“ or “exact lesion” or “exact person” or “exact characteristic” unless one adds the word “exact” to them.

“Character” as a lone word, still, does not mean “Exact Character”. As we've seen from many examples in early greek literature and from the old testament use of the word, there are no examples from greek literature where the lone word "Character" means "Exact Character" and many, many examples where it does not mean "exact".


Post two of two follows