Do you mean the meaning that not following all of Torah is lawlessness?Yes, one possible meaning, which I am sure is why LGW always tries to make clear which meaning is intended when using lawless or lawlessness.
I agree that the New Testament writers were influenced by the lxx, much the same way theologians for centuries were influenced by the King James.That isn't quite how it works: the authors of scripture are taking words from whatever language is being used and using them according to the meanings already defined in the scripture, (especially the apostolic writings which quote heavily from the LXX).
This may indeed sometimes be a problem even with scholars and their lexicons in cases where they rely too heavily on ancient Greek writings such as the classics, (a different form of Greek). For example, there are at least four or five Greek words for seeing, to see, and the way in which they are employed in the Gospel accounts is not the same way they are used in the classics or even common Greek: they have their own meanings defined in the scripture by the Testimony of the Messiah, and especially in the Gospel of John.
And what about words that were not already defined in Scripture before the NT; e.g., regeneration, foreknowledge, propitiation, forerunner, etc., where were those definitions going to come from other than the Greek language?
And whichever one in the Greek which the NT writer used is the meaning of "seeing" in that NT text.
My point exactly. . .Those are English translations of well known Greek words and-or compound words.
My point exactly. . .
There were no Scriptural words in the OT for the examples I gave.
So did they pick those Greek words in order to create the teaching,
or did they pick those Greek words because they expressed the teaching received from Jesus?
And having picked those words, we are not at liberty to redefine them away from their definitions in the Greek.
They picked those specific words based on their definitions in the Greek because those definitions meant what they were conveying.
And if "see" has five definitions, whichever ones they used in a sentence are its Greek meanings as used in the sentence.
No our conversations and discussions are different. Your talking about something I am not even talking about trying to make the discussion about something I am not discussing because you have either not understood what has been written to you or your trying to change the topic and subject matter. I can understand why but which is it?Yes, your definitions of "Law" and "lawlessness" are different from mine. I believe your definitions were also different from the definitions other people were using, as well.
Nothing do to with the discussion in context to those who believe and teach the false teachings that God's 10 commandments being abolished under the new covenant which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).It is against the law in North Korea to insult the leader.If you insult the leader of North Korea, are you necessarily lawless?
Sure they do. Their application are to law. Any type of law, all law. The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).I trust you realize that these dictionary definitions make no reference to the 10 commandments.
You are correct that the two quotes of mine that you post are different. The particular Greek word for "law" does not appear in the passage, but the passage could apply to many different laws.
Even if (and it's a big if)
Romans says that breaking the ten commandments is sin, it doesn't mean that the writer of 1 John was using the word anomia the same way.
In addition to that, the word "law" doesn't refer to the same set of laws everywhere in the scriptures.
I suspected someone would say something like this.
The obvious rejoinder is that the authors of scripture used human languages made up of words with meanings that were defined before scripture was even penned.
I am not sure, you are the one that wrote it that is why I was asking you but when I read posts like the one you wrote it makes me think of Romans 2:1I give up. . .who?
It appeared to me that there were different definitions of "Law" and "lawlessness" being used on the thread. So I made that observation. Does that answer your question?No our conversations and discussions are different. Your talking about something I am not even talking about trying to make the discussion about something I am not discussing because you have either not understood what has been written to you or your trying to change the topic and subject matter. I can understand why but which is it?
I believe it has a great deal to do with the common understanding of "lawlessness".Nothing do to with the discussion in context to those who believe and teach the false teachings that God's 10 commandments being abolished under the new covenant which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).
Nope your trying to change the discussion into something I have never been talking about. I have defined my use of lawlessness (without law) in application to those who teach that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished in application to God's 10 commandments being abolished from the beginning of my posts all through my discussions. You are trying to change the discussion into something no one is talking about. Like I said earlier I can understand why.It appeared to me that there were different definitions of "Law" and "lawlessness" being used on the thread. So I made that observation. Does that answer your question?
No it doesn't. I am talking and used the English definition not in regards to scripture but in regards to an English application of the teaching of lawlessness and the claims that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished. You post here has nothing to do whatsoever in context the application of my discussion with those who believe God's 10 commandments are abolished in the new covenant which is a teaching of lawlessness.I believe it relates to the Greek word "anomía" which is used in 1 John 3:4.
Nothing to do with my application of the English word application to lawlessness in those talking in English making claims that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished. Your trying to change the discussion topic and I can understand why because you believe God's 10 commandments have been abolished which is a teaching of lawlessnessI believe it relates to the Greek word "anomía" which is used in 1 John 3:4.
It means "word"--not speech, thought, will, etc.--in both Scripture and in Greek.Logos (scripture reasoning) is required.
You do not realize it, but you just undercut your own argument.Sure they do. Their application are to law. Any type of law, all law.
Repeating a false statement many times makes it no more true.The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).
You do not realize it, but you just undercut your own argument.
Since lawlessness can be in relation to any law, I can be "lawless" even if the 10 commandments never existed. Or more to the point, I can be lawless even if the 10 are retired.
I am not teaching lawlessness, despite your repeated misrepresentations.
This should end this ridiculous tangent, but I am sure it will not.
Repeating a false statement many times makes it no more true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?