Hello, Jez.

Given that you very clearly can't read Greek, and that this places you in precisely the same situation as the RF pastors that you criticize, how is it that you believe your interpretations of the machinations of the various Greek words for "love" are correct? I'm sorry, but 'e-sword' does not a Greek scholar make.

In closing, I would extend to you a piece of well-intended advice: dump Strong's Corncordance. It's scholarship is woefully out-of-date, and it's definitions often grossly misleading.

God bless,

Ian

Is that all you have to say about this? It is interesting that you tell me to dump Strong's, yet offer no alternative. If I were so far from correctly interpreting 'love' then please enlighten me?

I studied German at university, so while my Technical German is nothing like what a native can speak, does this render me insufficient in being able to understand it? I never professed to being a 'Greek Scholar', but clearly looked into due to the very strange teachings of TRF.

From what you are saying, it does seem like you infer that unless we are all 'Greek Scholars' to your level, then none of us can be saved and our faith is in vain.

Also, what makes you so confident about your own interpretations of what the Greek words meant back then? It might be of interest to you that many people who stand opposite each other in conversation will mis-interpret each other and a common phrase is, 'No, sorry I did not mean that, you have misunderstood'. They are standing opposite each other and can read the emotions and facial expressions. Therefore, using your extremely strict stance, what hope is there?

I have not come here for an argument, I was actually looking at the history of TRF and found this site. The scriptures do say that the Holy Spirit teaches us all things and we have no need for a teacher, ie no excuse!. I am interested also in your stance on that.

Give all glory to Jesus in everything we do.

Neither of you answered the questions; and the comments are about as uplifting as a broken record.

I am interested to know if you are both Christians and if so, then why you are not more helpful and humble, yet full of argumentative resentment.

If you understood 'ego' then you would realise it didn't fit the context in any way. If you cannot use modern English terms correctly, then what hope do you have of understanding another language placed in a period circa 2000 years ago?

After having a scan through this forum it does seem quite a 'misery loves co' habitation. Some of you need to lighten up. Why leave one controlling group just to be a slave to arrogance?

Rejoice in the LORD always, no? and love oneanother? Well you could have fooled me!

Good morning, Jez.

Is that all you have to say about this? It is interesting that you tell me to dump Strong's, yet offer no alternative. If I were so far from correctly interpreting 'love' then please enlighten me? First, 'no', I've plenty more to say on the subject, but all in due time. Second, and with respect to the readily available alternatives to Strong's Concordance, there are several. But the issue, I think, is of a different sort to that which you apparently think it to be. To begin with, concordances don't function primarily as dictionaries, they're designed and intended to be used as Bible verse lists. The lexical dictionaries that are appended in the rear of most 'exhaustive' concordances are secondary, and they provide rather truncated glosses, many of them barely three lines long. The standard Greek lexica (e.g. Liddel, Scott and Jones; and Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingritch) by contrast, provide extended discussions of the semantic range and meanings of words that often fills several columns of several pages. There are also the supplemental works to consider, including the 10 volume Theological Dictionary of New Testament (TDNT), and the 4 volume New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT). These resources provide near exhaustive treatments of key biblical words. I've just checked our targeted word, and volume 9 of TDNT allocated 58 pages, while volume 2 of NIDNTT gave 14 pages to the 14 Greek cognates that deal in one way or another with 'love'. Even the popular-level, Mounce's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words devoted almost 5 columns to discussing the four Greek verbs and single Greek noun for 'love' that we find in the NT. Strong's Concordance is clearly weak by comparison.

Next, to be even marginally effective at undertaking a responsible word study you would need to consult each and every Scripture reference relating to a particular Greek word in your concordance, in an attempt to properly grasp the word's range of contexts (it's context that determines a word's meaning, every time). Even then you'd still come up short. Most of the 'key' Greek words derived their meanings from the way they were used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Bible of the first church (the Septuagint, shortened to 'LXX'). I'm betting you don't have a copy of the almost 2,000 pages long Hatch and Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint sitting on your bookshelf, nevermind a copy of Ralf's edition of the LXX.

Finally, there is a simple fact that I don't believe you yet understand: meaning properly resides at the syntactical, rather than at the lexical, level. It's for this reason that the LXX can say of Amnon's raping of his sister Tamar, that he 'loved' her, using the verbal form of the noun 'agape' that we find consistently used of God's 'love' towards us! This is one example of your much vaunted 'G25' word.

I studied German at university, so while my Technical German is nothing like what a native can speak, does this render me insufficient in being able to understand it? I never professed to being a 'Greek Scholar', but clearly looked into due to the very strange teachings of TRF. Sure, but you've attempted to pass judgment on others over a matter about which you have no first-hand understanding or ability. And as I pointed out to you earlier, your opinions are therefore no more authoritative than are those of the European RF pastors that you seek to castigate. Are you trying to 'out-arrogant' them as well?

From what you are saying, it does seem like you infer that unless we are all 'Greek Scholars' to your level, then none of us can be saved and our faith is in vain. How odd. To reach such a completely left-field conclusion you'd have to suppose something other than what I've actually written. Revivalists do this quite a lot, a fact that we've been addressing in some detail with others recently. Thank you for reinforcing the very fact of my point.

Also, what makes you so confident about your own interpretations of what the Greek words meant back then? I'm quite confident that my response to your post, thus far, adequately answers your question. But to summarise: (1) I'm a fluent reader of the language; I can read my Greek New Testament better than you do the English Bible. (2) I possess and regularly consult a broad range of lexical works, each of which are recognised as academic standards for biblical Greek. (3) I properly understand the range of associated contextual factors that provides colour and flavour to the the way the language is used in the Greek New Testament. (4) I'm also reasonably familiar with the history and the development of the language over time. 

It might be of interest to you that many people who stand opposite each other in conversation will mis-interpret each other and a common phrase is, 'No, sorry I did not mean that, you have misunderstood'. They are standing opposite each other and can read the emotions and facial expressions. Therefore, using your extremely strict stance, what hope is there? First, my 'stance' is anything but 'strict'. In fact, it's far more 'relaxed' than is yours. But to respond to your point, the very nature of Greek itself facilitates its proper understanding. Unlike English for example, Greek is a thoroughly inflected language, like German. Consequently, its morphology and syntax promotes a degree of clarity and precision that is often very difficult to achieve in English. It's for this reason that Greek was so well suited to philosophical and theological discourse, far better than, for example, was Latin. Next, the various New Testament authors were very intentional writers. Paul, for example, wrote in such a way as to avoid ambiguity given the many doctrinal and ethical disputations he found himself engaged in. Finally, it also helps to be very well acquainted with the modes of thought and theological principles of the respective writers. Properly understanding Luke, for example, is crucial to properly understanding his Acts of the Apostles.

I have not come here for an argument, I was actually looking at the history of TRF and found this site. Sure. It also presents as if you came here intending to lambaste others who are no more knowledgeable of the subject than are you.

The scriptures do say that the Holy Spirit teaches us all things and we have no need for a teacher, ie no excuse!. I am interested also in your stance on that. Actually, 'no', they don't. But I will begin by suggesting to you that given that Scripture clearly presents that Jesus gave some to be teachers in the Church (see Ephesians 4:9-11) it seems quite unlikely that the church can function without them. I'd also point you towards passages such as Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 4:16 and 17; Colossians 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:6-16; Titus 2:1; Hebrews 5:11-14; James 3:1, and others of a similar ilk. Finally I'd ask you to reflect on the fact that there are literally hundreds of disagreements over matters both minor and major with respect to doctrine, between supposedly equally 'Spirit-Filled' people (whatever that term is supposed to suggest). Clearly either the Holy Spirit is a woeful guide/teacher, or Scripture doesn't present what you've inferred.

God bless,

Ian

Thank you for that response. It was a lot more encouraging than the first and I do have a few books/references, but I will look at the ones you have commented on for personal study.

Yes, I do 'know of' the terms you have mentioned, but you were right that I did not know, nor would be able at this stage, truly (If ever) to understand/implement the syntactical. Again, I re-iterate what you called a 'left-field' conclusion: Due to the extremely extensive study/time/finances required for such a diligent search for accuracy, you are inferring that anyone not able to be so well-versed in the Greek is in a hopeless position to be certain of what they profess to believe. Indeed, this is clearly not a 'left-field' conclusion from what you have written.

I think the two scriptures below are quite powerful and put the above in perspective? By mentioning the scriptures below I am in no means saying that studying the Greek was/is of no use, otherwise an English translation (any many others) would not have occured and people would not have come out of the 'catholic age' whereby the Gospel was seldom proclaimed.

If you have done a full study on the NT 'love', then, please let us all read it to see how much more different it is in principle to the 'simple' one I did using the Strong's.

1Co 13:2 And if I have prophecies, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1Jn 2:27 And the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and as He taught you, abide in Him.

Jez, once more.

Thank you for that response. It was a lot more encouraging than the first and I do have a few books/references, but I will look at the ones you have commented on for personal study. Encouragement is what I aim to do. Next, and with respect to you seeking out some of the better references, such would be a very wise move.

Yes, I do 'know of' the terms you have mentioned, but you were right that I did not know, nor would be able at this stage, truly (If ever) to understand/implement the syntactical. Again, I re-iterate what you called a 'left-field' conclusion: Due to the extremely extensive study/time/finances required for such a diligent search for accuracy, you are inferring that anyone not able to be so well-versed in the Greek is in a hopeless position to be certain of what they profess to believe. Indeed, this is clearly not a 'left-field' conclusion from what you have written. Nonsense, I inferred nothing of the sort. Not every Christian needs to be a scholar in the purist sense of the word, but clearly some do: those who presume to be teachers in the Church, for example. But those whose knowledge is, at best, fleeting, should perhaps bridle their tongues more and presume to teach others less. What do you think?

I think the two scriptures below are quite powerful and put the above in perspective? By mentioning the scriptures below I am in no means saying that studying the Greek was/is of no use, otherwise an English translation (any many others) would not have occured and people would not have come out of the 'catholic age' whereby the Gospel was seldom proclaimed. Sorry, but I'm not into Revivalist proof-texting. And it also seems you're anti-Catholic as well.

If you have done a full study on the NT 'love', then, please let us all read it to see how much more different it is in principle to the 'simple' one I did using the Strong's. Unfortunately I rarely keep such things to hand. I study a matter then I move on. Suffice it to say, your own word-study was markedly deficient.

God bless,

Ian

Jez,

You're certainly an amusing sort, I'll say that much!

God bless,

Ian

Hey No-Jez --- Is Pastor P still the head honcho in Europe?  Do the various Assemblies throughout Europe still vary greatly in terms of their levels of strictness etc.?

Thank you Brolga for that breakdown and analysis of love. How does phileo apply then according to your understanding of the Greek in that age? Can you clarify the 'affection, personal sentiment' where it appears in the NT and when we are told to phileo the LORD. Also where it says the LORD has phileo for us.

Jojo, the assemblies do vary in strictness. PP is still the man who people love to fear. There are some very miserable assemblies and also some which still have the joy. The Czech assembly is full of joy and also the Hugarian one (from what I could see). The Irish are quite a cool gang, but then I would say that being from Yorkshire ;) I am told that the east coast of Australia is quite 'penetcostal' with the introduction of new songs (crikey!) PP has a lot of control and they continually 'skype' and every meeting is ultra rigid.

I never knew of any problems with PW, I always found him to be very approachable and he also discussed things with me which weren't part of TRF, but out of respect to him, I'll not say what topics they were. PM was always friendly.

In each assembly, you would have a good number of robots and cardboard suits who were part of the furniture. Plenty who you could see did not read their Bible, but accepted the interpretation of PP who disgracefully accepted the 'Big Bang with God, is fine' stance just to compromise with secular religion.

I don't think it will be long before the euro division cuts off from Australia. PP is too caught up in his own legalism. They dangerously teach 'God gave the pastors their office and in the council of many, there is Wisdom'.

DW when I met him was much different to the audio recording i heard on the net. maybe he simmered down? don't know, but it's difficult to judge people 'at camp'. I went to a meeting in holland after the German camp *eeek* Some individuals did seem to have a double personality. One in front of the other europeans, and then one ultra-repressive 'home' one.

'Shine Jesus Shine' is now an outlawed song along with quite a few others. Many strange formalities and laws occured. AT camp, if you didnt wear a tie when giving out the communion, then 'you weren't showing respect to God' INCREDIBLE!
 
I had to leave after particular interpretations and doctrines were promoted.

I must say prior to looking at this site, I never knew of the controversy surrounding the Godhead and Jesus. When I first went there I spoke about it often due to my 'run-ins' with JWs and no-one stood up and commented on what I said. (ie standard Christian belief in the Godhead.)

I was brought up as a JW, so the cult's control methods stood out quite easily since 'I had been there before'.

Now in God's grace and mercy, I continue on as a Christian and will rejoice in the LORD.

Thanks for that. Actually, I always questioned the interpretation of John and the 3x love and I must say that what you quoted from Mounce’s Expository Dictionary does seem very logical.

It is still interesting that he used two different words. Would the hearer would signify a different word being used? To put it into a modern conversation, would you equate this to somebody asking another, 'Do you trust me?' and then saying 'Do you believe me' afterwards?

In other words, the agapaō was not being avoided in its more 'substantial' meaning for this period and being replaced with phileō as being a significant shun to the previous word.

I hope you can follow what I am saying. In other words, If I asked someone 'Do you trust me?' and then they responded 'Yes, you know I believe you!' then to an English ear this would not sound like a contradiction, nor a change in substance, but merely a different word amounting to the same thing.

I agree also that the scriptures are clear in the love expected due to the many examples listed and recorded throughout the Bible. The giving, the charity and the affection for each other and the obedience to do well and be Holy as we are called to be is the fullness of love.

Jez,

Well there you have it, some brief but effectual (and readily available) 'pre-digested' scholarship offered here for your benefit.

Ralph's quoting of Mounce's Expository Dictionary should settle the issue of the various supposed meanings of 'love' for you, once and for all. As I pointed out to you in a previous post, (1) meaning doesn't reside at simply the lexical level but at the syntactical level; and (2) one needs to understand the vagaries of the particular Bible authors to properly understand just what it was they were trying to get across. In other words, "a text without its context is a pretext for a prooftext".

However, there is a relatively significant point about which Mounce was silent, one that should assist in  enlightening all a little further with respect to the current issue. The principle reason that ἀγαπάω (agapao) was used so frequently by the respective NT authors had to do with the semantic domain for φιλέω (phileo) constricting to the point where it's primary meaning had become, "to kiss" in the first century. Unfortunately the standard Greek word for "to kiss" had also changed its primary meaning to, "to engage in coitus" at around the same time, hence the shift in meaning for φιλέω. Consequently, and to avoid the potential for detractors scorning them through lexical puns based on innuendo, Christian writers chose ἀγαπάω as a substitute for φιλέω. The situation faced by the early Christians is quite similar to, for example, the situation that we would encounter today in the English statement: "Christians are a gay lot". The inference of the statement is considerably different when made in the 1930s, to that when made in the 1990s. In conclusion, what is the lesson to be learned in all this? Quite simply it is this, people who are incapable of reading the biblical languages for themselves shouldn't presume to invest individual words with theologically-loaded, or theologically-suggestive meanings. It's far better for such to accept the findings of the acknowledged experts in this respect, and be content reading their English Bibles, as-is.

God bless,

Ian