What is the Gospel?

[UGC]

No word stands alone, isolated

First of all, genius, if this were true, words would not have their own definitions, and dictionaries wouldn't even exist. You would NEVER be able to define a word on its own UNLESS you put it in a sentence, meaning words mean whatever you want them to mean (like they do to idiots like Ransom: which is why he makes both God's word and heretics like Westcott & Hort's words mean whatever he wants them to mean: the meaning of their words CHANGE depending on what Ransom WANTS them to mean).

Yes they do. You uneducated, pompous teenager.

That's the entire reason translators will translate the exact same word into DIFFERENT English words in different places: because adding a surrounding context to a Greek word can alter it's meaning, depending on how it's used in a sentence and in what context.

Otherwise all translations would consistently translate the same Greek word to the same English word every single time.

 

[Ransom]

First of all, genius, if this were true, words would not have their own definitions,

And definitions are composed of what? Other words. A word can only be understood in relationship to other words. In other words, context . . . genius.

 

[treasure_unseen]

You missed the post that followed and completed my point:

Also it should be noted that in this case, the etymology is not SEPARATE from the original definition.

Any "Bible" definition that changed that original definition AFTER the fact is NEW: Notice how FSSL tried to argue that the ORIGINAL definition was "secular", but that later men's theologies came along and CHANGED that original use of the word.

The historical references used to identify the meaning are secular. You look beyond the Scriptures themselves to see how a word is used in other ancient documents. Are you really that lost in this?

Hey geniuses: before the NT was written, the Greek language already existed, and when they were using it in common, everyday language, THEY WERE NOT TELLING EACH OTHER TO TURN FROM SINS, THEY WERE SAYING "CHANGE YOUR MIND" ABOUT THIS, OR "CHANGE YOUR MIND" ABOUT THAT. DUH.

In this, we agree. However, that has nothing to do with the word "repentance". The message of the Gospel was Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ, that is the Eternal Message of God to humanity.

Yet, Certainly........ the Gospel message concerning Jesus Christ is meant to change the mind of the hearer.

 

[Ransom]

Meanwhile, UGCoward still can't provide a straight answer to this question. Boy, he sure threw "one of the oldest and most reliable" New Testament lexica under the bus.

(subj.) compunction (for guilt, includ. reformation; by impl. reversal (of [another's] decision):--repentance.

In Strong's definition of metanoia, what is being reformed by the person experiencing guilt?

UGClueless can't answer this. Because he's an ignoramus.

 

[Ransom]

The historical references used to identify the meaning are secular. You look beyond the Scriptures themselves to see how a word is used in other ancient documents. Are you really that lost in this?

Yeah. He really is.

Want to bet UGClown actually believes Gail Riplinger's hilarious drivel about the KJV's built-in dictionary?

 

[treasure_unseen]

Here, let's try this.

Why don't you tell us exactly what you believe it means. This is fair: I spent enough time explaining my understanding of the definition, now let's hear yours and we'll perhaps follow it through to its inevitable conclusion with some Socratic questioning, then we'll all see which one stands cohesive in the end with both logic and scripture.

I have been doing just that. You're the one that is ignoring what I say.

 

[UGC]

I guess he likes to stand on the street corner shouting "METANOIA!!!" without any sort of context, like a crazy person.

Is that what you think Dictionaries are doing when they're defining words?

Banana: a fruit.

Ransom: "Banana can't just mean banana, it's a word, and words don't have their own meaning unless you put them in a sentence that GIVES them their meaning FIRST. Therefore bananas don't exist unless you put them in a sentence FIRST, then they suddenly pop out of thin air and mean something."

Hey genius: You need the ORIGINAL MEANING to know how the surrounding sentence MODIFIES this meaning. You can't just say a word means NOTHING and then MAKE UP whatever you want it to mean ONCE YOU SEE IT USED IN A SENTENCE. The world of literature is not your play dough by which you can dictate whatever you want truth to be onto the world.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Is that what you think Dictionaries are doing when they're defining words?

Banana: a fruit.

Ransom: "Banana can't just mean banana, it's a word, and words don't have their own meaning unless you put them in a sentence that GIVES them their meaning FIRST. Therefore bananas don't exist unless you put them in a sentence FIRST, then they suddenly pop out of thin air and mean something."

You need the ORIGINAL MEANING to know how the surrounding sentence MODIFIES this meaning. You can't just say a word means NOTHING and then MAKE UP whatever you want it to mean ONCE YOU SEE IT USED IN A SENTENCE. The world of literature is not your play dough by which you can dictate whatever you want truth to be onto the world.

That is called a noun. A verb gives action to the meaning. You can have all the bananas you want. They are practically meaningless to you unless you taste them.

 

[UGC]

Now everybody point and laugh at the pompous moron:

That is called a noun. A verb gives action to the meaning.

Yeah I don't know if you were paying attention, unseen, but Ransom said "NO WORD".

Also, metanoia is the NOUN form of metanoeo, and Ransom's argument applies to either. Try again.

 

[tmjbog]

Liddell-Scott mentions the NT usage of μετάνοια meaning "repentance" in passing (LIddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 8th ed., s.v. μετάνοια), but as this is primarily a lexicon for classical Greek secular literature rather than the Bible, I'll just note that and move on.

As for Thayer, on the other hand:

μετάνοια, -οίας, ἡ, (μετανοέω), a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done, Heb. xii. 17... esp. the change of mind of those who have begun to abhor their errors and misdeeds, and have determined to enter upon a better course of life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it and hearty amendment, the tokens and effects of which are good deeds (Lact. 6, 24, 6 would have it rendered in Lat. by resipiscentia), [A.V. repentance]: Mt. iii.8, 11; Lk. iii. 8; [16 Lehm]; xv. 7; xxiv. 47; Acts xxvi. 20;... μετ. ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, that change of mind by which we turn from, desist from, etc.Heb. vi. 1 [B. 322 (277)]; used merely of the improved spiritual state resulting from deep sorrow for sin, 2. Co. vii. 9 sq. (Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. μετάνοια.)​

Of course UGC would have us believe that Strong's, "one of the oldest and most reliable" of Greek lexicons (though it was only a convenient quick-reference), would contradict the more comprehensive, scholarly, and reliable lexica that he likely used as sources.

It is to laugh.

That's impossible. He's always telling us how brilliant he is. Certainly he learned Greek by age 5.

 

[FSSL]

Any "Bible" definition that changed that original definition AFTER the fact is NEW: Notice how FSSL tried to argue that the ORIGINAL definition was "secular", but that later men's theologies came along and CHANGED that original use of the word.

Tried to argue? It is a well-known fact that biblical writers used common words that people knew and applied them to biblical truth. You don't have the tools to know this...

5th Century BC: Thucydides used the word
3rd Century BC: Polybius used the word

Your definition is SECULAR and accuses Jesus of suggesting that salvation is just another secular experience.

 

[Ransom]

Notice how FSSL tried to argue that the ORIGINAL definition was "secular"

You're lying again. He noted that the entry for metanoia in the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon cited examples of its usage in secular sources. Which, of course, it does, as does any good lexicon.

BDAG: "change of mind" (cites secular sources)... [then gives the biblical understanding]​

 

[treasure_unseen]

UGC.... stop for a minute. Slow down. Listen for a minute.....

What does the Word of God do to the heart of the hearer? It cuts. I wounds the hearer.

Now everybody point and laugh at the pompous moron:
View attachment 1543

Yeah I don't know if you were paying attention, unseen, but Ransom said "NO WORD".

Also, metanoeo is the NOUN form of metanoia, and Ransom's argument applies to either. Try again.

BUT.... you ignored what I said about tasting bananas. You can't tell me you really know what a banana is ....without having tasted it.

 

[Ransom]

Is that what you think Dictionaries are doing when they're defining words?

Yes. Dictionaries shout random words on street corners like a crazy person. That is what I think they are doing.

[rolls eyes]

Good grief, you are dull. But that question was so stupid, I didn't even waste my time on the rest of your post. There was no way it was going to get better. You should be ashamed you even posted such idiocy.

 

[UGC]

That is called a noun.

Dumb, Dumber, and Dumberer.

You can't tell me you really know what a banana is ....without having tasted it.

Holy cow! These guys are morons! Yet they actually think they're smart. You pompous dumbos!

 

[Ransom]

You can have all the bananas you want.

Trust me, he's got all the bananas.

 

[UGC]

 

[Ransom]

Since UGCuckoopants disputes my point that you can't define a word without other words, I'd like to see him try and define a banana without resorting to other words.

Of course he won't. He's too ignorant.

 

[UGC]

Dumb, Dumber, and Dumberer:

Yes. Dictionaries shout random words on street corners like a crazy person.

Your definition is SECULAR and accuses Jesus of suggesting that salvation is just another secular experience.

You can't tell me you really know what a banana is ....without having tasted it.

I think Unseen and FSSL are competing for stupidest comment of the year here. Perhaps the decade.

5th Century BC: Thucydides used the word
3rd Century BC: Polybius used the word

That's nice. I used the word today. Did they use it correctly or did they make up a new definition for it?

UGCuckoopants

Why do all your jokes sound like they were made by a 5 year old?

 

[treasure_unseen]

View attachment 1544

Dumb, Dumber, and Dumberer.


Holy cow! These guys are morons! Yet they actually think they're smart. You pompous dumbos!
View attachment 1545

Are you exclusively using English nouns to define Repentance?

I know you think you're the smartest person in the room but this is looking bad for you.