Humpty Dumpty

Faber · Post by **Faber** » Sat May 13, 2017 8:21 am

"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean" (Humpty Dumpty in 'Through the Looking Glass' by Lewis Carroll).

Those who deny the Trinity often employ the same rational as Humpty Dumpty in their approach to defining the words of the Bible. Since the proper definitions refute their doctrine they resort to attacking the meanings of the biblical words as found in the lexicons.
What they offer is simply their opinion of what they think the words ought to mean in accordance with their beliefs.
"The Bible is inspired not the lexicons" is a claim so often made. What is ignored is that the words of the Bible are to be properly defined otherwise like Humpty Dumpty words can simply mean anything we want them to. Communication will inevitably break down.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:54 am

Faber wrote: The Greek word for "name" is singular.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

The text may very well have been written this way to avoid tedious repetition. This is a commonly used linguistic method, instead of forcing the author to write:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, isn't it a fact that God has several names? (YHWH, Elohim) If we assume that Jesus and God are one entity, then God ends up with even more names (YHWH, Elohim, Jesus, Emmanuel). So if you insist that "name" only be understood as singular, which name should we pick among all these?

Faber · Post by **Faber** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:05 am

It still reads that the name is singular when it could have very easily read "names" (plural) instead of "name" (singular).

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The above does not involve tedious repetition as your example demonstrates. It simply adds the "s" in English. That wouldn't be difficult to do.

One of the name of God is YHWH. Thus the Lord Jesus is YHWH.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:16 am

Faber wrote: It still reads that the name is singular when it could have very easily read "names" (plural) instead of "name" (singular).

So God only has one name?

Faber · Post by **Faber** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:18 am

Your example didn't work. It could have just as easily read "names" but it didn't.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:20 am

[Replying to post 44 by Faber]
I'll repeat my question: Does God only have one name?

Faber · Post by **Faber** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:22 am

Repeat your question all you want. You still haven't admitted that your example was a flop.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:27 am

Faber wrote: Repeat your question all you want. You still haven't admitted that your example was a flop.

If you'll stop dodging my question, you'll notice that it demonstrates that your insistence on "name" being strictly singular is false as God has several names. If God has several names, then insisting that "name" be understood as strictly singular defeats itself.

Faber · Post by **Faber** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:35 am

Context.

The situation where Christ uses "name" concerns itself with water baptism. To be baptized in this "name" shows complete ownership to the one they are being baptized into.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:37 am

Faber wrote: Context.

The situation where Christ uses "name" concerns itself with water baptism. To be baptized in this "name" shows complete ownership to the one they are being baptized into.

Your personal interpretation of the text is not an objective fact. It is a subjective opinion. If you think this is what "name" suggests then good for you. You cannot make an objective claim based on this subjective interpretation.

Faber · Post by **Faber** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:41 am

BDAG (3rd Edition): Through baptism...those who are baptized become the possession of and come under the dedicated protection of the one whose name they bear (onoma, page 713).

Your assertion that what I previously gave was an opinion is another flop of yours.