Misquoting Jesus

[What The Hey]

1) Allos vs. Heteros -- Allos refers specifically to quantity w/o regard one way or another to quality. Heteros refers to a qualitative distinction. Number is not an issue here at all.

Well remarkably, it's both yes and no to this one. There are times in the Word where number is an issue, and then there are times where it is not. I'll get into this later. I do recall a while back there was a intense debate regarding these Greek words heteros/allos. It ensued simply based on the fact VPW stated in TWW (p237) heteros means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two - and allos means when there can me more than two. From these definitions provided in TWW, one easily jumps to the conclusion that it must always be this way, yet from my study of PFAL and the PFAL collaterals, this is and was not the complete and sole definition the bible student is given for these two Greek Words.

Maybe Mike can shed more light on this, but as far as I am aware - the definitions given for heteros and allos appear in at least 3 of the PFAL collaterals: specifically in TWW (on p237), in RTHST (p174), and in JCOP (starting on p165). Each collateral gives the student a little more depth and insight on the meanings of these two different Greek words for "other".

Essentially this is all VPW gives for these definitions in TWW and what is also stated on p174 of RTHST. However it is in JCOP where VPW brings up the issue where heteros means “another of a different kind” (on p165) and where allos means “of the same kind”. (p166) When adding these descriptions to these two different Greek words for other, it adds more intricacy to their meanings. Essentially what you would ultimately end up with (according to VPW's defintions for allos and heteros) would be:

Allos – means “the other” or second of two when and where there may be more - when the other is of the same kind.

Heteros – means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two - when the other is of a different kind.

But one of the first things that needs clarification is: VPW never said for allos there must always be more than two and for heteros there must always be only two. What VPW said was, for allos there may be (not must be) more. Naturally this would imply there could be situations when allos means only two and there may be situations where there are more. May be does not mean - must be, and even I had to get this straight in my understanding.

I can understand why Heteros is a bit more difficult to grasp, - because VPW stated for heteros there can only be two involved where the word heteros is translated ‘other’. That is how I initially got the idea myself that it “must always be” this way. But then, I was reading into what VPW said thinking there must always be only two involved in every situation when the word heteros is used in the bible for ‘other’. Likewise you’ve probably had the same reasoning yourself and also concluded the same thing. Well, I was wrong in my understanding of both definitions for allos and heteros, because initially I believed it absolutely had to be – that it must be (not that it may be) this way for both these two words: allos and heteros. FOR MANY PEOPLE: THIS IS THE ENTIRE SUM of the HETEREOS - ALLOS debate. It is all based on this one dimensional thinking of these two different Greek words for "other".

But this still doesn’t answer the more important question; that is: “Just how does the bible student know when it is more than two when allos is given, and when does one know when there are only two involved for heteros? After all, VPW said it “may be” this way, not that it “must be” – remember?

I recall one critic who wanted to prove VPW was wrong in saying "heteros" does not always mean "only two". As scriptural proof, they pointed out to you Matthew 12:45. In Matthew 12:45 – it says: seven other (heteros) spirits. Seven is certainly more than only two, right? They used this scripture to prove to you there is an "error in PFAL" (which truthfully doesn't exist to begin with) because VPW NEVER said heteros is ALWAYS translated like this.

The reason why VPW is correct, is because likewise, there are also scriptures in the bible where heteros does mean: only two. For example: Matthew 6:24: it says: serving two masters – God and mammon – he will hate the one and love the ‘other’. Now here the Greek word for other is: heteros. God and mammon are only two, they are not more than two.

With this misunderstanding out of the way, we can go on to: “Just how does one know when heteros is referring to ‘other’ when there is more than two, and when it is referring to the ‘other’ of only two whenever it appears in the scriptures? The word Heteros can be translated as ‘other’ in the bible, but there are also places where heteros is translated another. And this is part of the answer.

The times in God’s Word where heteros appears as ‘other’ and when and where only two are involved, the bible student can take the word ‘other’ (remove the article ‘the’ first) and replace it with the English word “another”. By removing the article “the” and ‘other’, and replacing it with word “another” the scripture will still make grammatical sense in English. On the "other" hand (pardon the pun) one can’t do the same thing when and where heteros involves more than two. Here is an example:

One can’t have seven “another” spirits (heteros as it appears there in Matthew 12:45) but one can certainly hold to the one, and despise “another” (heteros as it appears in Matthew 6:24). If one is having difficulty determining whether or not heteros means only two or if there can be more than two - just apply this simple test. I am not saying that this is the one and only test one can apply to determine the proper usage of heteros in the bible, but I have found that it does work remarkably well. This simple test also works very well when dealing with the "others" crucified with Jesus. It is also rather enlightening when applied.

[WordWolf]

This thread is resembling a Twilite Zone episode with several conversations going on at once.

I've pretty well said what I want to say here on this thread, so for those who are hell-bent on protecting the poor, innocent, helpless, brainless, easy-to-manipulate new people coming here from my overly-convincing evil clutches... I'll probably gravitate now to my promised response to doojable on her thread in this Doctrinal Forum titled "OK once and for all" so that they can take cheap pot-shots at me there.

Fine.

And those of us who, in accordance with standard practices all over

the internet, challenge false, error-ridden, or foolish doctrines or posts,

we'll meet you there as well.

Whatever cheap pot-shots you were referring to can keep company

with insightful valuable insights. :)

[WordWolf]

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

dmiller,

Did I address your concerns this second time around with my comparative tatterations analysis? ...PFAL having comparatively FAR, FAR less tatterations due to various factors, the largest being no need for translations?

[Actually,

he's made evident some ADDITIONAL problems with his positions,

and-more than once- proved he was superfluous,

but since he's missed it twice already,

explaining it to him a third time won't help at all.]

Like that topic last summer regarding Dr knowing that "The Joy of Serving" was going to be his very last teaching, I hope I've demonstrated at least to you and a small few others that this is no ad hoc adventure I’m on, but that I’ve thought through every angle in extreme detail well before I ever dared facing the heat of posting here.

[He's demonstrated he's thought thru a few things,

but, apparently, he's quite unprepared for even token opposition,

let alone all the opposition he COULD be facing,

with ALL his errors being exposed by bunches of posters.

After all, he's still under the impression that his errors will

vanish if I suddenly stop posting.]

My position was many years in the making, and much of my preparation for these ideas took place without my awareness.

[i'd believe that.]

I never would have dreamed I’d be espousing these things even 9 years ago, let alone 30. If it hadn’t been for a rich confluence of many sources dating back decades I’d probably be on the majority opinion’s side here at GSC.

["Rich confluence" being Mike for

"an individual walk with God was too difficult, and being wrong was too

painful, so I ran from both"....]

This may be the other half of my answer to templelady (I think it was her) when she asked me who appointed me to the job of blowing the whistle on the things we ALL messed up with 20 and 30 years ago.

[Actually,

at the time,

you HONESTLY admitted you appointed YOURSELF.

NOW, of course, God drafted you.]

I can look back and see it was a Godly setup that induced me to volunteer for the job. I don’t expect her (or many others) to believe this, but I do believe it and act on it no matter what the price. I act in spite of what others think. What God thinks about these things is all I really care about.

[Let's save some time.

Please fill in the blanks.

"I was praying to God for answers, since I was ready-again- to

give up on God. Then God spoke to me audibly.

God said to me (blank).

At first I couldn't believe it.

So, I said to God

"God, if that's really you talking,

give me a special-effect... (blank).

And at that moment, God (blank)."

Anyway, I read half of WW’s post looking for loose ends before I totally sign off this thread and nearly fell asleep. If you or anyone else want to carry out the assignment he doesn’t seem to have the capacity for and present to me any substantial loose ends I’ll fade away here.

[Oooh, he's accusing me of lacking capacity!

Oh, I am wounded!

Well, throwing insults is a LOT easier than answering

the issues and errors I raised, even ONE of them,

after all.]

Edited January 10, 2006 by WordWolf

[markomalley]

WTH,

I appreciate your response, but have one question for you:

What's your point?

You quoted a post I made. You then went through this condescending, pedagogical diatribe and never once showed me where I was wrong. So, where was I wrong?

Oh, and, please don't quote that homilist as a source for your proof. Please show me from the Biblical text, not from the work ABOUT the Bible written by a homilist. Thanks.

Have a nice evening.

Edited January 10, 2006 by markomalley

[WordWolf]

Well remarkably, it's both yes and no to this one.

[No, it isn't, and saying so doesn't change that.]

There are times in the Word where number is an issue, and then there are times where it is not.

[No there aren't. The meaning doesn't arbitrarily switch back and forth.]

I'll get into this later. I do recall a while back there was a intense debate regarding these Greek words heteros/allos. It ensued simply based on the fact VPW stated in TWW (p237) heteros means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two - and allos means when there can me more than two.

[vpw got this from Bullinger, and, since Bullinger was wrong,

vpw was also wrong. Bullinger made that one up.

Bullinger had this obsession with number, and sometimes he saw numbers

where none existed. I can forgive him for that-he was only human.]

From these definitions provided in TWW, one easily jumps to the conclusion that it must always be this way, yet from my study of PFAL and the PFAL collaterals, this is and was not the complete and sole definition the bible student is given for these two Greek Words.

[it wasn't the only definition given,

but it was wrong to be used at ALL.

The OTHER definition was correct all along.]

Maybe Mike can shed more light on this, but as far as I am aware - the definitions given for heteros and allos appear in at least 3 of the PFAL collaterals: specifically in TWW (on p237), in RTHST (p174), and in JCOP (starting on p165). Each collateral gives the student a little more depth and insight on the meanings of these two different Greek words for "other".

[Only one explanation was needed-since there's only

one correct answer.]

Essentially this is all VPW gives for these definitions in TWW and what is also stated on p174 of RTHST. However it is in JCOP where VPW brings up the issue where heteros means “another of a different kind” (on p165) and where allos means “of the same kind”. (p166)

[Now, THAT was correct. If he'd left that alone, it would

have been fine. That one can be demonstrated-easily-

and I do that all the time.]

When adding these descriptions to these two different Greek words for other, it adds more intricacy to their meanings. Essentially what you would ultimately end up with (according to VPW's defintions for allos and heteros) would be:

Allos – means “the other” or second of two when and where there may be more - when the other is of the same kind.

Heteros – means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two - when the other is of a different kind.

[but those definitions require one just accept that Bullinger

and vpw came up with those meanings out of nowhere,

and used NO evidence to support these meanings,

then began applying them.]

But one of the first things that needs clarification is: VPW never said for allos there must always be more than two and for heteros there must always be only two. What VPW said was, for allos there may be (not must be) more. Naturally this would imply there could be situations when allos means only two and there may be situations where there are more. May be does not mean - must be, and even I had to get this straight in my understanding.

[so, in other words,

sometimes his made-up definition applies, and sometimes it doesn't.

The fact that no example WORKS just means no example can be

FOUND where it applies. However, there are instances-which we never

see-where this definition-which came out of nowhere- applies-

but we'll never discuss them.

No thanks, I prefer linear thought,

and trying to hard to squeeze this in is no different

from vpw's complaint that people kept squeezing the word "water"

into all occurrences of the word "baptism" even though it didn't

belng there.]

I can understand why Heteros is a bit more difficult to grasp, - because VPW stated for heteros there can only be two involved where the word heteros is translated ‘other’. That is how I initially got the idea myself that it “must always be” this way. But then, I was reading into what VPW said thinking there must always be only two involved in every situation when the word heteros is used in the bible for ‘other’. Likewise you’ve probably had the same reasoning yourself and also concluded the same thing. Well, I was wrong in my understanding of both definitions for allos and heteros, because initially I believed it absolutely had to be – that it must be (not that it may be) this way for both these two words: allos and heteros. FOR MANY PEOPLE: THIS IS THE ENTIRE SUM of the HETEREOS - ALLOS debate. It is all based on this one dimensional thinking of these two different Greek words for "other".

[Well,

I suppose this might be true of SOME people.

However, most of us object because there is ONE meaning,

and a SECOND meaning got tacked on,

and it came out of nowhere.]

But this still doesn’t answer the more important question; that is: “Just how does the bible student know when it is more than two when allos is given, and when does one know when there are only two involved for heteros? After all, VPW said it “may be” this way, not that it “must be” – remember?

I recall one critic who wanted to prove VPW was wrong in saying "heteros" does not always mean "only two". As scriptural proof, they pointed out to you Matthew 12:45. In Matthew 12:45 – it says: seven other (heteros) spirits. Seven is certainly more than only two, right? They used this scripture to prove to you there is an "error in PFAL" (which truthfully doesn't exist to begin with) because VPW NEVER said heteros is ALWAYS translated like this.

The reason why VPW is correct, is because likewise, there are also scriptures in the bible where heteros does mean: only two. For example: Matthew 6:24: it says: serving two masters – God and mammon – he will hate the one and love the ‘other’. Now here the Greek word for other is: heteros. God and mammon are only two, they are not more than two.

["heteros" in this case means what it ALWAYS means,

"another of a DIFFERENT KIND."

God is ONE kind of master,

mammon is ANOTHER kind of master."

No additional meaning need be invented, inserted, or

pulled out of Bullinger.

That's not difficult to see, if you're actually looking,

and not trying to shoehorn it in.]

With this misunderstanding out of the way, we can go on to: “Just how does one know when heteros is referring to ‘other’ when there is more than two, and when it is referring to the ‘other’ of only two whenever it appears in the scriptures? The word Heteros can be translated as ‘other’ in the bible, but there are also places where heteros is translated another. And this is part of the answer.

["Another", meaning "an other which is different".

"Heteros" has ONE meaning.]

The times in God’s Word where heteros appears as ‘other’ and when and where only two are involved, the bible student can take the word ‘other’ (remove the article ‘the’ first) and replace it with the English word “another”. By removing the article “the” and ‘other’, and replacing it with word “another” the scripture will still make grammatical sense in English. On the "other" hand (pardon the pun) one can’t do the same thing when and where heteros involves more than two. Here is an example:

One can’t have seven “another” spirits (heteros as it appears there in Matthew 12:45)

[*checks*

That was actually an interesting reference.

That was of the man who was delivered from an unclean spirit,

didn't shut his trapdoor,

and eventually, that spirit returned to him,

with "seven other spirits more wicked than himself".

Since they're "more wicked than himself",

they're clearly "different" than him.

"Heteros", again, meaning "other that is different".]

but one can certainly hold to the one, and despise “another” (heteros as it appears in Matthew 6:24).

[if one master is just (like God), and the "other" is not(like mammon),

then the "other" is of a different kind.]

If one is having difficulty determining whether or not heteros means only two or if there can be more than two - just apply this simple test. I am not saying that this is the one and only test one can apply to determine the proper usage of heteros in the bible, but I have found that it does work remarkably well. This simple test also works very well when dealing with the "others" crucified with Jesus. It is also rather enlightening when applied.

[so far, supposedly, the ONLY usage which supposedly is

"unmistakeably" a numerical difference is in the crucifixion.

However, that is PRECISELY what is under contention now.

Unless you're sitting on an explanation better than you've

presented so far (and I haven't seen one myself),

then the numerical "definition" has no support other than the

dogmatic "I say this is what it means."]

[markomalley]

Wordwolf,

Let me ask you a question:

Why do you bother?

Seems like beating one's head against a wall. So just curious...

[WordWolf]

Mark,

up to you,

but I think WTH's latest post-although incorrect-is of a better

caliber than he normally posted, which I think is a good thing.

I pointed out where I think it was wrong, but I think that

the digression-at least for ONE post-was worth taking.

After all, it illustrated the circular logic.

WordWolf,

Let me ask you a question:

Why do you bother?

Seems like beating one's head against a wall. So just curious...

Actually, Oakspear figured it out long ago and posted why,

at least my main reason.

I also find that this exposure to flaws in reasoning and pointing

them out is good practice for those times I actually need

the skills. How else am I supposed to practice finding examples

of ad hominem attacks and so on?

Finally, the audience loves the bread and circuses.

If he's supplying so much grist for the mill, how can I refrain

from grinding?

Pm me if you want to discuss my main reason.

[markomalley]

Actually, WW, I was more curious about your responses to Mike than to WTH. But thanks never the less. The bread and circuses are sort of humorous from a raw-meat point of view.

[TheInvisibleDan]

Danny,

That's the crux of the issue:

<blockquote><i>The Patristic Fathers asserted that Marcion had deliberately shortened "the Gospel of Luke"; the Marcionites countered by asserting that the Catholic tradition had added to it. </i></blockquote>

The Marcionites also reject the other three Gospel accounts and the letters of Peter, James, John, Jude, and the Apocolypse of John in their NT Canon, as well.

I am not enough of a Biblical Scholar to be familiar <i>sufficiently</i> with the ancient texts to engage in an intelligent discussion of this particular subject. I, frankly, do not have the time to make myself sufficiently familiar with the subject enough to do so either. I have taken a look at the development of the New Testament Canon from the study of the Patristic writings to be satisfied with the validity of the canon...at least for my purposes. As one who is largely an autodidact on matters theological, there's only so far that I can go...at least efficiently. And, to be honest with you, I have neither the drive nor the financial independence needed to allow me to pursue a course of study that would make me competent to discuss the subject. Without that level of knowledge, we'll be limited to discussing this author's work versus that author's work (secondary sources) rather than discussing the material itself (primary sources). And that means we'll essentially be acting as chelas for competing gurus. We can see how intellectually sound that is from examining the posts made by certain people (who will remain nameless for their obviousness) on this thread, itself.

I hate to sound so anti-intellectual, but there are limits on my time and so I must devote that limited time to what is most profitable to my soul. The scriptures are not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. Their purpose is to reveal Christ to us so that we can conform ourselves to Him. I worship Christ, not the scriptures that reveal Him. So I will concentrate the bulk of my study time to those areas that will help reveal Him more completely to me and that will help me in the process of conformance.

I am familiar to a degree with the 'Q' theory and have briefly purused some of the other 'Acts' literature, but haven't devoted adequate time to their study to competantly discuss them. And without spending the time necessary (of which I really don't have), I am not competent to engage in <b>that</b> particular discussion. It's not that I'll take your word for it, I just don't have the time to engage intelligently one way or the other. So I'll leave it go for now...until I have the time to get adequately spun up on the subject to engage in an intelligent discussion...

Mark,

I understand completely. You're hardly "anti-intellectual" ( no more than I'm anywhere near "intellectual", lol) and I've enjoyed your posts for the breath of fresh air that they are, and respect your position and the thoughtfulness and civility of your replies, regardless of whatever disagreements concerning points of ideals or doctrines we might hold. Pursuing Christ for the help in the process of conformance and transformation is a noble and worthy goal.

Danny

[Cynic]

If what appears on these messages is more or less correct, it seems the two usages for heteros and allos that Bullinger pressed were at one time correct, but were generally associated with Greek more ancient than the Greek of the New Testament.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...ust/022202.html

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...ust/022210.html

[What The Hey]

I appreciate your response, but have one question for you:

What's your point?

You quoted a post I made. You then went through this condescending, pedagogical diatribe and never once showed me where I was wrong. So, where was I wrong?

I never said you were wrong - but then you're not entirely correct. Neither is WordWolf. WW is only partially correct in saying heteros means "another of a different kind". Where he is wrong is in stating heteros has nothing to do with a numeric quality or there being "only two". Well, apparently he overlooked this verse when dealing with the word heteros.

Luke 22:32

And there were also two other [heteros] malefactors led with him ...

The word for other in this verse is not the word allos (more than two) but it is the word heteros, because there were only two malefactors involved - and there were not more than two malefactors led out with Jesus. Here it is heteros to also show the malefactors are "of a different kind". In other words, the malefactors could not have been robbers, as they are heteros "of a different kind" then the duo lestai. While every robber is a malefactor (an evil doer), not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber. The Word of God does not say what the malefactors did to deserve to be crucified, but we do know they didn't commit robbery because of this word heteros.

The two malefactors (duo kakourgoi) are different from the "duo lestai" - the two robbers. The Word of God clearly indicates there were ONLY TWO MALEFACTORS and that there were not more than two that were led out with Jesus. So if the argument you want to make is that heteros has no "numerical quality" (as you and WW seem to be intent on making the arguement heteros has no numeric quality) then one could likewise put forth the argument all four evil doers (or rather that "allos" - that more than two evil doers) were led out with Jesus from Pilate's Hall there in Luke 22:32- and that all FOUR of them were crucified at the same time Jesus was crucified. But we know from other scriptures that this is not the case. The robbers were brought later - and they were brought after they hung up the superscription over Jesus's head. This is only one of many reasons why heteros means there are ONLY TWO!.

The mistake is in thinking that heteros MUST mean "only two" in every single situation in the bible as one critic had pointed out. One way to find out if that is true, is simply replace the word "other" with the word "another" and see if the scripture still makes sense gramatically. If it does, in that particular situation then heteros will ALWAYS mean ONLY TWO - not more than two, where as, in other situations it "may be" (not must be) different.

I've already shown this to be the case, but in only one example and instance. I did a more in-depth word study on heteros quite some time ago just to check to see if the word heteros was used instead of allos or perhaps some other Greek word that was translated "other". Now if the word "other" happens to be the Greek word heteros and when the word "another" is substituted in its place (and the phrase still makes gramatical sense and keeps its thougth continuity) then HETEROS in that verse will ALWAYS BE ONLY TWO - AND NEVER WILL IT BE MORE THAN TWO in those verses. I have already done this with every verse where heteros appears, as this word seems to be the entire crux of the problem.

But this isn't true with allos. Whenever you substitute the word allos with the word "another", then it does not ALWAYS mean ONLY two like it does with heteros - because allos can mean more than two. Now there are times where allos is only two, but whenever it is more than two, you will find that the word another still fits gramatically and that is not the same case as it is with Heteros! But when you do this with the Greek word Heteros and it DOES fit gramatically THAT IS WHERE heteros will ALWAYS be only two and never be more than two. With Heteros it will never, ever mean more than two as it does with allos, when the word "another" is substituted and takes it's place.

The argument and the confusion over heteros-allos was all started by a critic when they "assumed" heteros did not mean: "only two". I have pointed out that are some situations in the Word where it does not mean only two, and these are the cases where one CAN NOT substitute the word "another" for 'other' and have the scripture maintain its continuity and still make gramatic sense - it is in those cases where heteros is different. Why bother to substitute the word "other" with 'another'? What's the point? For one thing, the Greek word heteros is also translated as the word: "another" it not singularlly translated as 'other'. (Look it up if you don't believe me.)

You will not find the same situation to be true though with the word allos when you substitute allos with "another". Why? Because with allos when you substitute it with the word 'another' - in EVERY case and in EVERY situation the scripture constantly maintains its continuity and likewise makes gramatic sense - but with Heteros - it DOES NOT ALWAYS do that. When and where heteros DOES make gramatic sense though, and maintains thought continuity (when the word "another" is substituted for 'other') that is when HETEROS MEANS ONLY TWO and never MORE THAN TWO.

When the word other is replaced with "another" and a scripture doesn't make any gramatical sense or have any thought continuity, that is the only time when heteros is a different story. You got it now? I'm not 1000% sure, but perhaps that is what VPW meant when he said, "Heteros may and is used also as a generic discrimination in some instances..." I don't believe anyone ever got the opportunity to ask him too much about that though. I don't believe the question was even raised for that matter.

[markomalley]

WTH,

Thank you for your response.

First of all, the reference should be Luke 23:32, not 22:32 as you stated. If you would have read an earlier post that I made on the subject, and/or if you'd check any reputable Greek lexicon (including many fine lexicons online), you'd note that the word rendered malefactors is, in fact, an adjective...not a noun (as it is used in the KJV). In fact, all three of the words two (duo) other (heteros) malefactors (kakourgos) are all three adjectives...(all are in the nominative case, plural number, masculine gender). So, as I said in my original post on this particular subject (a couple of pages ago), to say that malefactors are different than robbers (lestes -- a noun), is ridiculous. An adjective describes an object. A noun is an object. It's like comparing 'apples' to 'red' -- it makes no sense.

When you understand that, the bit about heteros and allos become simply a smoke-screen.

[markomalley]

Two other points:

1) Your argument presupposes that there were more than two in order for it to make any kind of sense, whatsoever

2) If a numeric was the only concern. 2 (duo heteros kakourgos) + 1 (Iesus) = 3. That is more than two. So if your argument is correct, this is the word that should be used, regardless. Don't forget Isa 53:12

"Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and

was counted among the wicked

; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses."

These two arguments, coupled with the thrid just mentioned,

3) kakourgos and lestes are different parts of speech: kakourgos is an adjective and lestes is a noun. A comparison between the two is like comparing red and apple. Nonsensical

Sort of nullify any argument in regard to 'four crucified.'

[TheInvisibleDan]

If what appears on these messages is more or less correct, it seems the two usages for heteros and allos that Bullinger pressed were at one time correct, but were generally associated with Greek more ancient than the Greek of the New Testament.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...ust/022202.html

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...ust/022210.html

Cynic,

Thank you for these very interesting links.

Danny

[Raf]

Where he is wrong is in stating heteros has nothing to do with a numeric quality or there being "only two". Well, apparently he overlooked this verse when dealing with the word heteros.

Luke 22:32

And there were also two other [heteros]malefactors led with him ...

Not only does this NOT PROVE that heteros means "other when only two are involved," it actually helps disprove it. If heteros means "other when only two are involved," then "two other" is redundant. It would be like saying I bought a pair of two shoes.

You go on to say that heteros is used to distinguish the kakourgai from the lestai, but why? Why distinguish between the kakourgai and the lestai when the lestai are not being mentioned at all in this gospel? Again, the use of heteros doesn't prove a single thing you're insisting it does.

[templelady]

This may be the other half of my answer to templelady (I think it was her) when she asked me who appointed me to the job of blowing the whistle on the things we ALL messed up with 20 and 30 years ago. I can look back and see it was a Godly setup that induced me to volunteer for the job. I don’t expect her (or many others) to believe this, but I do believe it and act on it no matter what the price.

Mike you do me a disservice when you suppose that I do not understand that God in his infinite wisdom can "engineer' if you will, a series of events so that at the proper time and place a needful thing will come to pass--I believe this most heartily as I am sure some other posters here do also.

What My question was--Which you sill haven't answered BTW, Is what makes you believe you were part of such a setup and how did this "setup" come about???. What were the steps involved??, when did they happen???, how did you know they were of God???

I can look at my life and see specific times where certain events occurred, which at the time made no sense, while simultaneously events were occurring in others lives that made us all present at a certain time and place because it was necessary we all be there.

This is not an abstract feeling --when God calls us to a calling we can look back and see the stepping stones in our lives that led to the place and time of the calling. I do not sense this in your life, I may be wrong, instead I see someone who took upon himself the calling and then extrapolated that since he had assumed the calling that is what God wanted

the two are not the same thing.

I merely ask for the stepping stones you experienced tro validate that you were indeed called by GOd

[Raf]

Comment withdrawn (unnecessary).

Edited January 10, 2006 by Raf

[Mike]

templelady,

You wrote: “I merely ask for the stepping stones you experienced to validate that you were indeed called by God”

Well, I’m not so sure you MERELY did that. You asked me a trick question in some ways, I think.

If I answer that my actions are motivated by my flesh then you would outright refuse to recognize them as worthy.

If I answer that my actions are motivated by spirit, then you can say it’s that wrong spirit and/or that I’m obviously insane because God talking to people “died with the apostles.”

Either way you’re set to reject my work, so why even ask me that question? Your question is a kind of a set-up disguised as an objective inquiry. You know darn well there’s no answer I could give, no string of characters that could be typed on a computer screen by me that would get you to change you mind, so your question is just a rhetorical device to justify your rejection of me to yourself and others.

Instead of doing a faked and rigged examination of my credentials, why not look at the message I bear instead and open Dr’s books again?

God’s Word speaks for itself better than I ever can, so by closely following the contents of my message, by coming back to PFAL and mastering it’s written forms, the verification you pretendingly seek of my veracity will come forth.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Mike

[dmiller]

Either way you’re set to reject my work, so why even ask me that question? Your question is a kind of a set-up disguised as an objective inquiry. You know darn well there’s no answer I could give, no string of characters that could be typed on a computer screen by me that would get you to change you mind, so your question is just a rhetorical device ....

Well - I could say the same about you.

I've yet to see you ask a question that you really wanted an answer to.

Edited January 11, 2006 by dmiller

[sirguessalot]

hey mike...

long time no jibber jab, eh?

hey...thinking about ya, dude

reading along and something caught my eye

Either way you’re set to reject my work, so why even ask me that question? Your question is a kind of a set-up disguised as an objective inquiry. You know darn well there’s no answer I could give, no string of characters that could be typed on a computer screen by me that would get you to change you mind, so your question is just a rhetorical device to justify your rejection of me to yourself and others. Instead of doing a faked and rigged examination of my credentials...

so ok, im just curious...as usual

where did all this information come from?

just this

how did you come down to such a narrow range of conclusions?

Edited January 11, 2006 by sirguessalot

[Mike]

sirguessalot,

You wrote: "how did you come down to such a narrow range of conclusions?"

I came back to PFAL, opened the books, started reading, and liked what I found.

I also had some very good guidance in my reading of said books. In 1998 I landed in a real good fellowship that had already been into mastering the books for several years. They showed me much, and still do.

***

Yeah, it's been a while since we talked. And how long ago was it you visited me and Pamsandiego? Going on two years already? Time is flyin'

Edited January 11, 2006 by Mike

[sirguessalot]

no, i meant your conclusion about templelady's thoughts and intentions...

where did you get the information to come to those soft conclusions?

as it seems to me..

being one of your kinder inquisitors

TL simply asked you about 'stepping stones'

but you respond as if she asked you whether you are motivated by spirit or flesh

(which she did not)

then, you went on to further reduce the possible outcomes of all possible meaning in the conversation

and proceeded to imply that you have read her thoughts or feelings or something

somehow under the impression that she is trying to trick you

im just wondering if you think it is possible that you are responding to inaccurate information about TL's? motives

...

and yeah...2 years or so sounds about right

time is flyin

[Mike]

Todd,

You wrote: "im just wondering if you think it is possible that you are responding to inaccurate information about TL's? motives"

Yes I do, just unlikely. I coded my realization of this possibility with two qualifiers in my response.

Here is the sentence to her where I qualified my guess, with bold fonts this time:

"Well, I’m not so sure you MERELY did that. You asked me a trick question in some ways, I think.

[sirguessalot]

yeah. i saw that line. which is why i called it a soft conclusion

anyway, nevermind...

carry on

[Mike]

I'm pretty much done.