Podcasts about lexicons

There is no such thing as an English Bible, only a translation. This is a chapter by chapter verse by verse Bible study from the original language Manuscripts, translated through the Lexicons and out from any English version you prefer. Mankind has a 100% failure rate at governing ourselves. Lawyers casting doubt on the truth then and now. There is nothing new under the sun as far as human character is concerned. Observe how Apostle Paul keeps his cool while defending himself against lies. Like Jesus Christ said " The Truth Shall Set You Free " . It takes lots of patience for the smokescreen of lies to clear. When it does the truth will always be there. The word 'information' is not in your Bible. The word 'light' is used instead. The word 'intellect' is not in your Bible. The word 'spirit' is used instead. Your spirit is the intellect of your soul. @companionchapel1033 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCaB3vM5EVoA8GBq0In_QTw?sub_confirmation=1 There is nothing new under the sun as far as human character goes. As it is written all these things are for examples for us in these end times. Mankind has a 100% failure at governing ourselves. GOD is governmental perfection. No SugarCoated Bible Study Here. Is there anything more important than where you go when you die? There will be a great permanent separation of people. If God allowed people with ideologies contrary to His back into the Kingdom of Heaven, it would be nothing more than a new Hell. Observe how the Apostles never let phoney's disempower them. Obsessive taunting creates an obscene mob-scene but we are never to lose our faith. BEWARE of people that call themselves Christians. People drop that terminology on themselves to gain trust through false pretences. "Show me your works and I'll see your faith" We live in an era where telling the truth is the problem, not misinformation. God has nothing to prove to us. We have everything to prove to God. What is more important than where you go when you die? Death in the original Biblical languages never denotes non-existence. Spiritual life is a conscious existence in communion with God. Spiritual death is a conscious existence separate from God in the nether parts of the earth where there is no praise or presence of God whatsoever. Companion Chapel Worldwide Ministry is a registered non-profit. These broadcasts depend on your provisions. Partner with the Companion Chapel to help us reach out to a hurting world with the message of Christ's love. Please give what you can at companionchapel.com Please email companionchapel@gmail.com with your questions about the Bible, your prayer requests or just to say hi to let me know you are out there. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/companionchapelpodcast/message

This episode is one of a three-part series recorded as part of the Rare & Vintage Beer Tasting, an annual event held in Durham, North Carolina that brings brewers and beer lovers together from all over the country. Along with a beer festival, Rare & Vintage also hosts beer industry professional development conversations each January. The combo acts as a fundraising and awareness effort for the Michael James Jackson Foundation, which funds education and career advancement for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color in the brewing and distilling industries. For this year's event, I moderated three discussions, and in this episode, you'll hear me in conversation with three panelists talking about how language and culture have built the lexicon for beer and what we can do to change and enhance it all. It's a spiritual connection to a James Beard Award-winning story Good Beer Hunting published in 2022, in which Mark Dredge explored how flavor wheels and tasting tools should evolve to speak to a global collection of beer drinkers. To build on the ideas you may have read about in that story and share new ones, joining me were: Breeze Galindo, director of operations for the Michael James Jackson Foundation and founder of MiLuna Brewing. Lindsay Barr, co-founder of DraughtLab Sensory Software. Rafael D'Armas, brewer at Brookyln's Kings County Brewers Collective, also known as KCBC. As you listen to the back-and-forth between these three, you get to hear practical, scientific, and philosophical approaches to how we can all think differently about the way we describe and talk about beer. The importance of this, as you'll hear, is a necessary step to acknowledge how diverse beer is becoming—even if it's been slow—but how much the language we use is going to matter next year and long after that. After you listen to this episode, make sure to check out the other two from Rare & Vintage, which includes a panel discussion about bias in measurement, brewing, and more, and a keynote conversation with my Good Beer Hunting colleague and friend, Jamaal Lemon.  

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

Tuesday Teaching Tip 331 | Biblical Preaching - Part 3 | Tools of the Trade | Malcolm Cox Point to consider When we talk about tools, we are not talking about engineering a sermon, nor producing a formula. My wife is a doctor, and once she described practising medicine as being part science and part art. She meant to convey that although the science needs to be robust, if that is your primary focus, it can obscure the person you are meant to be treating. Who wants to be treated by a Doctor who doesn't listen to you, fails to acknowledge your presence, and does not treat you as an individual? Similarly, no so-called technique for lesson preparation will work for all people in all contexts. Nor will one method work for one person all the time. Therefore, as we explore the tools we use and the ways in which we use them, let's do so with half an eye on how they may be utilised flexibly. Alternatively, those who approach preaching as ‘from the heart' and pay lip service to exegesis are the equivalent to the Doctor who treats their patients according to folklore, feelings and fantasy. That's not a Doctor I want looking after my health. Effective preaching and teaching is a blend of ‘art' and ‘science'. In this episode we will focus on the latter more than the former, but both are necessary. Chapter 3: Tools of the Trade Choose the passage to be preached: In my opinion there is a balance to be found between choosing texts and topics which are meaningful to you and of immediate relevance to your congregation, as well as thinking systematically about the biblical education of your faith community. Is there a balance of old and new Testaments? How are you doing covering a mix of genres -– parables, prophecy, poetry, narrative etc? In the book you will find more on the issues of thought units; topical exposition and sermon length. Study Your Passage and Gather Your Notes: It should go without saying that we need our own ideas about a text. Before you use the scholarship of other people, valuable as it is, take the time to read the passage in more than one translation, and make your own notes on the verse, paragraph, or chapter you are planning to use for your lesson. Be systematic. Keep your notes in a book, a folder, in a file on a computer, or within some Bible software. In the book you will find more on the issues of: context; Lexicons; Concordances; Grammars; Word-Study Books; Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias; Commentaries; Bibliographies; Other Tools As you study the passage, relate the parts to one another to determine the exegetical idea and its development: A chasm separates what a passage is saying and what it means. That chasm is bridged by asking questions of the text. For example, in Mark 6:47-50 we are told that Jesus walked on the lake. To simply restate that information will not a sermon make. We must enquire as to the passage's purpose. That means asking ourselves why Mark included this incident. What comes before and after? Is it important that it comes after the feeding of the 5000? You would need to ask yourself what that's about in order to determine if the context is significant. How does the passage fit with the rest of Mark's emphasis? We would also want to look at the wider biblical context. For example, is there any significance to the mention of the mountainside in verse 46? What was Hebrew thinking about bodies of water and wind? Again, what is the purpose of this incident? Once we can state that in our own words, we can move on. In the book you will find more on the issues of: The subject and the complement. Conclusion: as Robinson says, “One device you may find helpful as to paraphrase the passage in your own words.” “At this point…you should be able to do two things: first, to state the idea of the passage in a single sentence…; and second, to state how the parts of the passage relate to the idea." This is hard work and takes time, but if you get this done well, the rest of the lesson will come together much more easily.  Consider joining AIM UK&Ireland to develop your understanding of Scripture: https://aimukandireland.com/. Our current module is Homiletics (the preparation and delivery of lessons). Contact us here with enquiries: courses@aimukandireland.com   The website can be found here: https://aimukandireland.com   Please add your comments on this week's topic. We learn best when we learn in community.  Do you have a question about teaching the Bible? Is it theological, technical, or practical? Send me your questions or suggestions. Here's the email: [malcolm@malcolmcox.org](mailto:malcolm@malcolmcox.org).  If you'd like a copy of my free eBook on spiritual disciplines, "How God grows His people", sign up at my website: http://[www.malcolmcox.org](http://www.malcolmcox.org/).  Please pass the link on, subscribe, and leave a review.  Remember to keep calm, and carry on teaching. God bless, Malcolm

This episode is filled to the brim with words. With luck, and your kindness, those words will make sense. SEGMENTS: [1] The episode begins with the promised reply to Che Webster's epic call-in from the previous episode (Exploring the Experience of Play). To hear that message in its entirety, please refer to that episode. It's right at the beginning so you won't have to search for it; just press play and relax. In this episode, a short and directly relevant section of his call is presented for context but that wee snippet o' Che pales in comparison to the full expression of his ideas. Don't cheat yourself. Go back and revel in the full message. The context of the tiny morsel of Che in this episode reveals the semantic nuance of Frames that were obvious to Che but not to me, and the understanding of switching costs in cognition when "multitasking" or alternating between two tasks - an idea upon which we are in full agreement: at least for certain tasks. [2] We then move into what might be the meat or might be the side dish of this meal, practical examples of using understanding of layers to inform how we play. [3] The last main segment of the episode is a recap of ideas I have expressed about a lexicon of useful terms, jargon, and techniques for roleplaying games. REFERENCES IN THIS EPISODE: [1] People and Podcasts of the Internet: Roleplay Rescue Podcast and Blog, The Nerds RPG Variety Cast, Keep off the Borderlands, Random Screed, Primeval Fantasy [2] On Switching Costs: Multitasking: Switching costs (apa.org) [3] The Elusive Shift: How Role-Playing Games Forged Their Identity (Game Histories)Jon Peterson [4] Umbramancer YouTube Channel: Umbramancer - YouTube https://youtube.com/@umbramancer5466 [5] Perspectives on Play by FreeThrall The Stochasium | Free Thrall | Substack [6] Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds ⁠Gary Alan Fine⁠ 298 pages | 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 | © 1983 This classic study still provides one of the most acute descriptions available of an often misunderstood subculture: that of fantasy role playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. Gary Alan Fine immerses himself in several different gaming systems, offering insightful details on the nature of the games and the patterns of interaction among players—as well as their reasons for playing. [7] All for One: Regime Diabolique (Triple Ace Games, Musketeers face Supernatural Threats and Intrigue, Ubiquity) Actual Play Playlist https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZfuKgeD5fl5WyrYbJodpTB9UDYqj3NNH Solo Player Episode: Margot; An invisible experience of immersion Original Version: https://www.youtube.com/live/mgcY3WTsPmE?feature=share Annotated Version: https://youtu.be/oOqDmmTmFqo IvanMike's Commentary: https://youtu.be/sratz8EghLU Runeslinger's Commentary: https://youtu.be/s-egXZY5OQc NEXT EPISODE: The next episode will feature Eloy Cintron, known on YouTube as Umbramancer, who shares his practical application of all of this theory talk to D&D as we explore the metric by which he assessed my ideas on Layers of and Approaches to Play: Dungeon Crawl Mode vs Story Mode in Dungeons & Dragons. CONTACT ME: [1] Send a voice message to CastingShadowsPodcast (speakpipe.com) [2] Find me on Discord, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube @Runeslinger --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/runeslinger/message

Are you fascinated by Biblical prophecy and hope to understand future events in the world? Join us in this exciting exploration of Revelation 17 & 18, two of the most renowned chapters in the Bible. Unlock the meaning behind the symbolism of the seven churches, the dragon, and the beast, and uncover what the mysterious writing on the wall means for you. Gain an unprecedented level of insight into these two critically important chapters with our comprehensive video guide! You'll be empowered with the knowledge you need to decypher the mystery of Revelation 17 & 18 and unlock its secrets. Plus, gain a comprehensive understanding of the main characters in these chapters, including the titles of the beast, the false prophet and the Dragon. Don't miss out on this great opportunity to unravel the mystery and take control of your own destiny! Click here now to uncover the secrets of Revelation 17 & 18 and access the ultimate biblical glossary. From the original language Manuscripts, translated through the Lexicons and out from any English Bible you prefer, you'll learn a new way to break down and understand Revelation. There are 800 million videos on YouTube & 37 million channels. It is nothing short of a miracle that you have found this video. Please help support this channel. https://youtu.be/F4j2u15GBD0 Please ' Like' 'Subscribe', hit the 'Noti bell' & comment below . It's the least you can do to help glorify, magnify and broadcast God's saving Word. (It helps with the algorithms) Contact Companion Chapel Worldwide Ministry Today (a registered non-profit ministry) Hundreds of Bible teaching podcasts available, simply google Companion Chapel podcast. Email Today companionchapel@gmail.com Enquire about your spot in the Companion Chapel Homesteading Community Please help me keep bringing these podcasts to you. Donate whatever you can at companionchapel.com (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discovery, PayPal) Or E-transfer to companionchapel@gmail.com. Please consider I do this full time for You. Please send Walmart, Rona, Home Depot gift cards to #338 Sideroad 28/29 Paisley Ontario Canada N0G 2N0 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/companionchapelpodcast/message

Ever been confused by the apocalypse? Have you ever thought the book of Revelation was too complex and unreadable? If you've ever looked at Revelation chapter 12 and 13 and thought you wouldn't be able to get anything out of it, you're not alone. But this presentation will help you decode these chapters in the Bible, unravel difficult language, and uncover deep truths that are hidden in plain sight. From the original language Manuscripts, translated through the Lexicons and out from any English Bible you prefer, you'll learn a new way to break down and understand Revelation. By the end of this presentation, you'll be able to go through Revelation chapter 12 and 13 easily and enjoyably. There are 800 million videos on YouTube & 37 million channels. It is nothing short of a miracle that you have found this video. Please help support this channel. https://youtu.be/w8QDCGJM92g Please ' Like' 'Subscribe', hit the 'Noti bell' & comment below . It's the least you can do to help glorify, magnify and broadcast God's saving Word. (It helps with the algorithms) Contact Companion Chapel Worldwide Ministry Today (a registered non-profit ministry) Hundreds of Bible teaching podcasts available, simply google Companion Chapel podcast. Email Today companionchapel@gmail.com Enquire about your spot in the Companion Chapel Homesteading Community Please help me keep bringing these podcasts to you. Donate whatever you can at companionchapel.com (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discovery, PayPal) Or E-transfer to companionchapel@gmail.com. Please consider I do this full time for You. Please send Walmart, Rona, Home Depot gift cards to #338 Sideroad 28/29 Paisley Ontario Canada N0G 2N0 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/companionchapelpodcast/message

In this episode, Stacey and Lois talk about Lent, Holy Week, and the lectionary, too!We'd love to hear from you! Please send your feedback and comments or questions to whosegirlareyou@gmail.com.

Words have become toxic. When a person must learn a thesaurus of words just to convey how one feels simply because it might offend a particular segment of the population. Does this mean society has become too sensitive to offending other people's sensibilities?. One can no longer classify a situation as retarded, lest the language offend those with mental illness. No longer can one say they feel they feel gay and spritely, lest they offend the LGBTQ community. It would seem that a lexicon of words is now required to function in society today. Does this no longer mean that people are listening to each other less, or simply not caring about what the other person has to say? This is our topic for this week's Blind Perspective. While it's important to learn a lexicon of language for English sake, should we learn that lexicon, because we don't have time or inclination to actually listen to each other? Join our panel, on Friday nights at 8:00 pm (EST), 5:00 pm (PST) and 1:00 am (GMT), as they discuss topical news items of importance from a blind perspective. The Blind Perspective is an interactive show, allowing for the participation of the audience. Should you wish to be involved in the conversation, please send an e-mail message to: whoseblindlifeisitanyway@gmail.com Or, message us on our Facebook page at: http://www.Facebook.com/whose.blind.life.is.it.anyway You can also Tweet us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/blindwhose Come join the conversation today.

We Pray For All the Churchy Church's filled with pedestrian Christians, run by pseudo Christian elders with $3 dollar bill pastors. Join me as we go through the book of Revelation. By far the easiest book to understand in the Bible as it is playing out on the world stage right before our eyes. Straight from the original language Manuscripts, interpreted through the Lexicons and out from any English version you prefer. Discover the threads that Only run through the original language Manuscripts that form the Bibles own glossary. These threads that run through the Manuscripts are God's trademark stamp of validity. These threads make up the structural fabric of the Key of David for your understanding. Please ' Like' 'Subscribe', hit the 'Noti bell' & comment below . It's the least you can do to help glorify, magnify and broadcast God's saving Word. (It helps with the algorithms) Contact Companion Chapel Worldwide Ministry Today (a registered non-profit ministry) Email Today companionchapel@gmail.com Enquire about your spot in the Companion Chapel Homesteading Community Please help me keep bringing these podcasts to you. Donate whatever you can at companionchapel.com (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discovery, PayPal) Or E-transfer to companionchapel@gmail.com. Please send Walmart, Rona, Home Depot gift cards to #338 Sideroad 28/29 Paisley Ontario Canada N0G 2N0 Thank You so much and God bless you! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/companionchapelpodcast/message

Straight from the Masoretic Text, translated through the Lexicons, No sugar coating. ,,Watch to the end to avoid mis-understanding. Please 'like' 'subscribe' & hit the 'noti bell' . That is your way of helping to glorify, magnify and broadcast God's saving Word Companion Chapel Worldwide Ministry is a registered non-profit (and still a one man show) Get involved today with whatever God given talent you have. Help glorify, magnify and broadcast God's saving Word. These Bible teaching podcasts are only possible through your provisions. Please give what you can at Companionchapel.com Thank you for the Walmart gift certificates sent to #338 Sideroad 28/29 Paisley Ontario Canada N0G 2N0 Come be part of the Companion Chapel Homesteading Community here on 77 acres of gorgeous property right on the Saugeen River. Email today companionchapel@gmail.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/companionchapelpodcast/message

Straight from the Massoretic Text, Translated through the Lexicons, Out from any English version Bible, No sugar coating. Watch on YouTube https://youtu.be/oc_kHRAh9J8 This lesson leads up to who the people are that are responsible for the mess our world is in today. Important,,Watch to the end to avoid mis-understanding. Companion Chapel Worldwide Ministry is a registered non-profit (and still a one man show) Get involved today with whatever God given talent you have. Help glorify, magnify and broadcast God's saving Word. These Bible teaching podcasts are only possible through your provisions. Please give what you can at Companionchapel.com Thank you for the Walmart gift certificates sent to #338 Sideroad 28/29 Paisley Ontario Canada N0G 2N0 Come be part of the Companion Chapel Homesteading Community here on 77 acres of gorgeous property right on the Saugeen River. Email today companionchapel@gmail.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/companionchapelpodcast/message

It's undeniable that the Bible explicitly teaches that a husband is the "head" of his wife. While church history has pretty much always believed this means the husband is the primary leader in the marriage and household, there has been serious pushback against this view from egalitarian scholars in more recent years. Time Stamps!! 0:00 - Intro 1. 10:33 - Part 1: Medical Claims That "Head" Means "Source" 2. 31:47 - Part 2: Bible Context Claims That "Head" Doesn't Imply "Authority" 3. 54:20 - Part 3: Church History Argument 4. 1:01:10 - Part 4: The Battle of Lexicons; does kephale mean authority? 5. 1:33:33 - Conclusions Their basic contention is that "head" doesn't mean what you probably think it means when you read it in Scripture as the description of the relationship between husbands and wives. They tend to offer 4 main arguments to support their case:1) In the Greek speaking world of New Testament times, general medical opinion was that the heart or liver controlled the body while the head was merely the "source" of nutrition. The egalitarians say that we need to factor in this popular medical understanding of "head" or we will mistakenly think the husband is the leader of his wife.2) Egalitarian scholars say that when you look carefully at Paul's use of the metaphor "head" and the specific context of the passages when it is used, you come to see that Paul is NOT meaning to imply anything about authority, but is speaking of nourishment or source. For instance, they will say that man is the source of woman in the sense that Eve was formed from Adam. Adam was her source.3) Surprisingly, some Egalitarians will actually share a quote from Chrysostom to show that one of the church fathers understood perfectly well that this term "head" didn't mean to imply authority. Catherine Kroeger, founder of CBE promotes this view, and many echo her.4) Finally, we get to the biggest one. They will claim that the Greek word translated "head" really means "source" and not "authority." I've found that egalitarians will repeatedly make very similar claims that ancient lexicons do not support the meaning of "authority" and that one very respected lexicon in particular (the LSJ) defends their case. I'm going to analyze each of these claims to see what the Bible really says about husbands being the head of their wives. This is super important, because it doesn't just impact who is in church leadership, it impacts every single marriage in the body of Christ! I can't overstate the practical impact of getting this topic wrong, so I have spent a ton of time gathering and, more importantly, researching to properly vet and test egalitarian claims about male headship. I'll give you the spoiler here in the description. On every single point they are very wrong, and even putting out blatant misinformation. I'll provide both analysis and evidence to support all this in today's video.‬ After years of being a bit confused about the topic of women in ministry, I set out to spend months researching the topic in great detail to produce this exhaustive teaching series on the topic. This is just part 8.

It's undeniable that the Bible explicitly teaches that a husband is the "head" of his wife. While church history has pretty much always believed this means the husband is the primary leader in the marriage and household, there has been serious pushback against this view from egalitarian scholars in more recent years. Time Stamps!! 0:00 - Intro 1. 10:33 - Part 1: Medical Claims That "Head" Means "Source" 2. 31:47 - Part 2: Bible Context Claims That "Head" Doesn't Imply "Authority" 3. 54:20 - Part 3: Church History Argument 4. 1:01:10 - Part 4: The Battle of Lexicons; does kephale mean authority? 5. 1:33:33 - Conclusions Their basic contention is that "head" doesn't mean what you probably think it means when you read it in Scripture as the description of the relationship between husbands and wives. They tend to offer 4 main arguments to support their case:1) In the Greek speaking world of New Testament times, general medical opinion was that the heart or liver controlled the body while the head was merely the "source" of nutrition. The egalitarians say that we need to factor in this popular medical understanding of "head" or we will mistakenly think the husband is the leader of his wife.2) Egalitarian scholars say that when you look carefully at Paul's use of the metaphor "head" and the specific context of the passages when it is used, you come to see that Paul is NOT meaning to imply anything about authority, but is speaking of nourishment or source. For instance, they will say that man is the source of woman in the sense that Eve was formed from Adam. Adam was her source.3) Surprisingly, some Egalitarians will actually share a quote from Chrysostom to show that one of the church fathers understood perfectly well that this term "head" didn't mean to imply authority. Catherine Kroeger, founder of CBE promotes this view, and many echo her.4) Finally, we get to the biggest one. They will claim that the Greek word translated "head" really means "source" and not "authority." I've found that egalitarians will repeatedly make very similar claims that ancient lexicons do not support the meaning of "authority" and that one very respected lexicon in particular (the LSJ) defends their case. I'm going to analyze each of these claims to see what the Bible really says about husbands being the head of their wives. This is super important, because it doesn't just impact who is in church leadership, it impacts every single marriage in the body of Christ! I can't overstate the practical impact of getting this topic wrong, so I have spent a ton of time gathering and, more importantly, researching to properly vet and test egalitarian claims about male headship. I'll give you the spoiler here in the description. On every single point they are very wrong, and even putting out blatant misinformation. I'll provide both analysis and evidence to support all this in today's video.‬ After years of being a bit confused about the topic of women in ministry, I set out to spend months researching the topic in great detail to produce this exhaustive teaching series on the topic. This is just part 8.

It's undeniable that the Bible explicitly teaches that a husband is the "head" of his wife. While church history has pretty much always believed this means the husband is the primary leader in the marriage and household, there has been serious pushback against this view from egalitarian scholars in more recent years. Time Stamps!! 0:00 - Intro 1. 10:33 - Part 1: Medical Claims That "Head" Means "Source" 2. 31:47 - Part 2: Bible Context Claims That "Head" Doesn't Imply "Authority" 3. 54:20 - Part 3: Church History Argument 4. 1:01:10 - Part 4: The Battle of Lexicons; does kephale mean authority? 5. 1:33:33 - Conclusions Their basic contention is that "head" doesn't mean what you probably think it means when you read it in Scripture as the description of the relationship between husbands and wives. They tend to offer 4 main arguments to support their case:1) In the Greek speaking world of New Testament times, general medical opinion was that the heart or liver controlled the body while the head was merely the "source" of nutrition. The egalitarians say that we need to factor in this popular medical understanding of "head" or we will mistakenly think the husband is the leader of his wife.2) Egalitarian scholars say that when you look carefully at Paul's use of the metaphor "head" and the specific context of the passages when it is used, you come to see that Paul is NOT meaning to imply anything about authority, but is speaking of nourishment or source. For instance, they will say that man is the source of woman in the sense that Eve was formed from Adam. Adam was her source.3) Surprisingly, some Egalitarians will actually share a quote from Chrysostom to show that one of the church fathers understood perfectly well that this term "head" didn't mean to imply authority. Catherine Kroeger, founder of CBE promotes this view, and many echo her.4) Finally, we get to the biggest one. They will claim that the Greek word translated "head" really means "source" and not "authority." I've found that egalitarians will repeatedly make very similar claims that ancient lexicons do not support the meaning of "authority" and that one very respected lexicon in particular (the LSJ) defends their case. I'm going to analyze each of these claims to see what the Bible really says about husbands being the head of their wives. This is super important, because it doesn't just impact who is in church leadership, it impacts every single marriage in the body of Christ! I can't overstate the practical impact of getting this topic wrong, so I have spent a ton of time gathering and, more importantly, researching to properly vet and test egalitarian claims about male headship. I'll give you the spoiler here in the description. On every single point they are very wrong, and even putting out blatant misinformation. I'll provide both analysis and evidence to support all this in today's video.‬ After years of being a bit confused about the topic of women in ministry, I set out to spend months researching the topic in great detail to produce this exhaustive teaching series on the topic. This is just part 8.

In this episode I discuss how words create our limitations. I go deeper into the power of freedom in words, based on how strong your vocabulary. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/justcine/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/justcine/support

Katie in Holland? What's all the Buzz about Desi and Daws? Forget “The Yam” – Let's Do “The Cha”! Disneyland's parking lot flopperoo! Will visits Brain Conventions – without Katie? Lexicons to the Rescue! Pupu plates! Sparkling mints that can save your life! Geckos on the ceiling! Will demonstrates some of his character voices! Your letters on the air! Season 2 and Easter Eggs explained! Pods vs. Podcasts! Salute to our pioneer Patreon supporters! Big thanks to our Patrons! Join our Patreon Family and enjoy all new episodes of our other shows including "Welcome to Later," "Adventures in Popcorn," and more Fun Stuff! https://www.patreon.com/TellYaLater Send Us an Email! tellyalater2021@gmail.com Support us on Anchor! https://anchor.fm/tell-ya-later/support Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tellyalatershow/ Get the Updated edition of our book, "ADVENTURES IN ODDITY" with 58 all-new pages - new cartoons by Will too! Learn more about Iggledip and other oddities! Order your autographed paperback copy.......https://www.katieleigh.com/books-audio OR the audiobook: https://www.katieleigh.com/books-audio OR Watch us "read" the BONUS CHAPTERS via our VIDEOBOOK available on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/adventuresinoddity (also available on AMAZON) PO Box- Tell Ya Later 18016 S. Western Ave. 208 Gardena, CA 90248 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tell-ya-later/support

FC Bengaluru United coach Richard Hood sits down to talk about the Durand Cup, I-League qualifiers, football culture, conspiracy theories and football lexicons.  #indianfootball #football #letsfootball #isl #indiansuperleague #india #heroisl #kbfc #keralablasters #kerala #soccer #manjappada #ileague #backtheblue #bluetigers #bengalurufc #atk #keralafootball #indianfootballteam #fcgoa #footballindia #eastbengal #sunilchhetri #kolkata #heroileague #mohunbagan #fifa #jamshedpurfc #fanbannapadega #bhfyp #FCGoa, #Gaurs #Gaurarmy #Goa #Goanfootball #JamshedpurFC #JFC #OwenCoyle #Coyle #JamKeKhel #GKFC #GokulamKerala #RGPFC #RoundglassPunjab, #Md Sporting #Stimac #BlueTigers #Hergametoo #AIFF #Hyderabad FC #HFC #AFCCUP #AFCCL #AFCCHampionsLeague #DurandCup 

Ever wonder how to use resources for your Bible Study? From Commentaries and Lexicons, to the best practices for accurate interpretations, Pastor Ben and Jordan walk through the various ways and resources for Scriptural Study. Our Podcast can be found on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/emd-campus-ministry/id1516924793 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=540129&refid=stpr Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hFvm9oVJgky2vJfPAsl5I Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zb3VuZGNsb3VkLmNvbS91c2Vycy9zb3VuZGNsb3VkOnVzZXJzOjgxMDYxMTE1Mi9zb3VuZHMucnNz To learn more about our ministry, and how you can support us, visit https://www.EMDCampusMinistry.org Intro/Outro music provided by https://www.Bensound.com

On this episode: Consumption habits. . . Be ever- present. . . Brand lexicons . . . Discounts? Re-using posts. . . And a “VO cameo” by Jimi Celeste! Fist bumps to Ed Bishop for his production and voice assistance. Additional vocal credit to my LaVOsanostra brotha Charlie Toro. WHO IS COREY DISSIN? Corey Dissin, The Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of Content and long-time broadcast production executive, is a voice talent authority and social media influencer who has impacted over 100,000 unique voiceover projects over the last 27 years. As the host of The Go Get It Podcast, Corey has gone toe-to-toe with industry pros like Joan Baker, Randy Thomas, Chuck Duran, and many others. He's also been “in the ring,” mixing it up and sharing his brand of common-sense, tough-love and career help as an expert guest on a dozen other podcasts. In addition, Corey mentors voice talent all over the country as a one-on-one marketing coach and is the author of the “5 Steps to Help Achieve the Voiceover D.R.E.A.M.” ebook. Corey's motivational and professional counsel extends outside the bounds of the media industry as well. Whether a CEO or an average Joe, Corey is trusted by many to develop personal brands and unique selling positions, providing grass roots guidance on how to harness the power of social media and discover the amazing benefits of content marketing. Entrepreneurs also look to Corey to help refine sales communications and optimize business infrastructures. As a long-serving head of two national corporations, owner of two others, and founder and president of a 501c3 non-profit, Corey puts his experience and acumen from all three to work for his clients on day one. CONNECT WITH COREY: LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook Youtube

Why is Tradition important when it comes to understanding Scripture? What does it mean that the lexical approach is not ecclesiological neutral? How can we trust apostolic tradition when Irenaeus said Jesus was 50+ years old when he died? Dr. Bryan Cross joins us to answer these questions and more as we discuss Tradition, lexicons, and paradigms. The Classical Theism Podcast aims to defend Catholic Christian ideas in conversation. With the help of various guests, I defend three pillars of the Catholic Christian worldview: (1) the God of classical theism exists, (2) Jesus is our Messiah and Lord, and (3) He founded the Catholic Church. We place a strong emphasis on the first pillar, defending classical theism, drawing upon the work of Thomistic philosopher Dr. Edward Feser and many others. John DeRosa www.classicaltheism.com/support

The word “ecclesia” has been said a few times on the podcast without any definition. We fix that in this episode. Matt Colby rejoins the podcast to talk about one of his favorite Bible study tools, the lexicon. As a practical example, we look up the word “church” in different lexicons to see what sort of definitions they provide. The Greek word for church is “ecclesia” and we delve into the significance of this word and why we prefer to say “ecclesia” instead of “church”. Scripture mentions: 1 Corinthians 11:18 Romans 16:5,23 1 Corinthians 1:1-2 (key verse) Lexicon resources mentioned: Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words https://www.amazon.com/dp/078526020X Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683072219 BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226039331 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (English, Hebrew, Aramaic and Aramaic Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/9004100768 New Testament Words by William Barclay (Author)https://www.amazon.com/dp/066424761X

Have you ever stopped to consider whether your lexicon of choice was trustworthy? The erudite exegete might recognize the limitations of lexicons, but what are we supposed to do with them? In his groundbreaking "A History of New Testament Lexicography," John A. L. Lee (Macquarie University) gently but incisively shows the faulty methodology that plagues NT lexicography and proposes a future for NT lexicography in light of the digital revolution.exegeticaltools.com@exegeticaltools

 About This Episode In this episode of the Drawn & Paneled Podcast, George & Jason welcome Tony Kittrell from Advent Comics to the show who braved a storm and microphone issues to help us discuss news on Stan Lee in World of Warcraft, Tin Tin’s Birthday, and a 17-year-old’s comic creation. In the round table, we cover Dark Matter Rise of the Lexicons, The Magic Order and Firefly.  Finally, we give our top picks for January 16th, 2019. We’re Generation X’ers who spent a large portion of our formative years immersed in the world of comics from the late ’70s, ’80s and early ’90s. Now we have rekindled our passion for the ink and paper medium of our childhood through the emerging market of indie comics. In this podcast bring you the news, reviews, and interviews you crave with a light-hearted approach and some lively banter each week on New Comic Book Day Wednesday. Join us and our guest panelist as we discuss Marvel, DC, Image, Aftershock, Scout Comics, and many more here on Drawn & Paneled. There will be a new episode every week on New Comic Book Day, so subscribe now wherever you listen to podcasts so you never miss a single issue! Patreon » https://patreon.com/genxgrownup Facebook » http://fb.me/GenXGrownUp Twitter » http://GenXGrownUp.com/twitter Website » http://GenXGrownUp.com Podcast » http://GenXGrownUp.com/pod Merchandise » http://GenXGrownUp.com/merch iTunes » http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/drawn-paneled-podcast/id1438932601 Google » https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Igw55v3qgoqjoi3xl7htyw5k7r4 PocketCasts » https://pca.st/k7PH Stitcher » https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/genxgrownup-2/drawn-paneled Show Notes WOW tribute of Stan Lee » https://bit.ly/2AHKDFs TinTin turns 90 » https://bloom.bg/2QILdbd 17 year old creates superhero to end violence » https://bit.ly/2TE3Yi6 Dark Matter Rise of the Lexicons » https://kck.st/2STVxPD Magic Order #1» https://amzn.to/2soMIBJ Magic Order#2» https://amzn.to/2RDsnqP Magic Order#3» https://amzn.to/2D6GpJ6 Magic Order#4» https://amzn.to/2Hm53Kj Magic Order#5» https://amzn.to/2SM4WZz Firefly#1» https://amzn.to/2spf1Ag Firefly#2» https://amzn.to/2SQvqcx Firefly#3» https://amzn.to/2Cf9Bw1 Agent Wild: Union Fall #1» https://kck.st/2AL1ozA Archive the Warhood Odyssey » https://kck.st/2ALvEKZ Shredder in Hell » https://amzn.to/2AIE4Tj The One » https://amzn.to/2Hb2Ukl Black Badge » https://amzn.to/2SM6kvc Middlewest #3 » https://amzn.to/2Ci5dMK Private Eye Deluxe » https://amzn.to/2SPtAIF Gideon Falls #10 » https://amzn.to/2AKYkU9 A Walk Through Hell #7 » https://amzn.to/2D79swc Baby Teeth #14 » https://amzn.to/2Hmp4A2 Knights of the GoldenSun #3 » https://amzn.to/2VSta6j The Valve Presents the Sacrifice and Other Steam Powered Stories » https://amzn.to/2Fsj7Qj Advent Comics on Facebook » https://www.facebook.com/advent.comics/ Advent Comics on Twitter » https://twitter.com/adventcomics Advent Comics on Instagram » https://www.instagram.com/adventcomics/ Contact Drawn & Paneled » drawn@genxgrownup.com

We discuss stages 1-3 from the book "Biblical Preaching" by Haddon Robinson.  Here is the link to the INTRO PODCAST we did on the subject. If God so leads, please consider taking advantage of this opportunity to give through the “Spirit Campaign” from November 15th through December 31st. When you donate to SDCS through the Spirit Campaign, your donations, up to $1,000 per family, are doubled! What a great way to multiply kingdom resources.  Here is a LINK to the flier for the campaign.  Please use it to donate.  Thank you!   Chapter 1 - The Case for Expository Preaching Robinson makes the case for expository preaching by showing how at the end of the day it allows the preacher to say with confidence, “thus saith the Lord.”  Expository preaching expounds and applies concept derived straight from the text of Scripture, applying it to the personalities and experiences of the congregation after having first been applied to the preacher himself.  Expository preaching does not import the preacher’s ideas into the text, rather the ideas that are preached and applied come from the text to the congregation by way of the preacher.   Chapter 2 – What’s the Big Idea?   Preaching must be a “bullet and not buckshot.”  In other words the congregation must be given a single idea that coheres the entire message preached in order to be able to grasp and apply what the preacher is bringing to them from the text.  In order to get this idea one must find the “subject” and the “complement” of the exegetical unit.  The subject is that which the author is talking about, and the complement is what the author is saying about what he is talking about.    Chapter 3 – Tools of the Trade   Robinson gets into the stages of sermon preparation here:   Stage 1 – Selecting the Text The selection of the text involves looking at thought units, sections of the text that contain an idea.  One must balance the size of the thought unit with a determination of the amount of time one has to preach.  Combining these two factors will give the preacher the right length of text to cover in one go.  Another way to preach is the topical approach, and the texts may be selected in much the same way.  One thing to be careful about with a topical approach though is that you don’t import the topic into the text; one must let the text speak for itself.   Stage 2 – Study Your Passage and Gather Your Notes The next stage gets into studying the passage and context.  Robinson gives five points to consider as you study the passage.  First take the context of the passage as it sits within the book into account.  In order to do this one may need to read the book many times.  The goal is to be able to see how the passage relates to the overall message of the book.  Second take the context of the passage in light of its immediately surrounding passages into account.  Third read several translations and write down the problems in translation that you observe. Fourth try to state the subject and complement, at least roughly.  Fifth is the study of the passage’s structure, vocabulary, and grammar.  It is during this time that knowledge of the original languages becomes very useful, even essential, to being able to see clearly what is being said in all its nuances.  He lists several resources that the preacher will want to avail himself of.  Lexicons, Concordances, Grammars, Word-Study Books, Bible Dictionaries, Commentaries, etc.   Stage 3 – As You Study the Passage, Relate the Parts to Each Other to Determine the Exegetical idea and Its Development In this stage you are analyzing and synthesizing the text, zooming in to get the particular details of the text, then zooming back out to understand how the smaller units fit into the larger.  During this time the subject and complement should be further refined to better reflect the particular idea within the thought unit.  In order to do this Robinson gives some instruction.  For  the subject, what the author is talking about, he recommends usin --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/practically-theologians/message

This is version 2.0 of this weeks episode. The original wasn't all that bad, it just seemed rushed. So we spent an extra day in the lab making tweeks and now it's ready for the world. With a good deal of new music and bands we're just excited to hear from. Featuring the music of Out Of Control Army, The Middle Volga Social Club, The Classy Wrecks, The Meddlers, The Gritty End, 6foot7, Lexicons, TheScrew Ups, and Stop The Presses!

Room 2A Audio: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=137354&cmd=tc

Room 2A Audio: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=137354&cmd=tc

We describe coffee as tasting like so many other things, fruits, sugars, caramels, candies, spices ... but the core coffee flavors are much more challenging to elucidate. I have come up with a term "coffee identity" akin to the basic taste identifying markers from other food and beverage flavor lexicons, and this podcast touches on the way we seek to focus and describe base coffee notes. There are so many tangets I could go off on here, and doubtless future podcasts on specific aspects of this material. -Tom

True From the Beginning Series - Psalm 119:160