The Gospel of Twelve Thrones

[TibiasDad]

You still haven't told me what Judas did that was his betrayal. Try again.

Luke 22:47While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”


Jesus said he betrayed him!


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Learn to use Strong's concordance.

I quoted Strong directly!

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
παραδίδωμι (paradidómi)

betray, bring forth
From para and didomi; to surrender, i.e yield up, intrust, transmit -- betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend.

see GREEK para

see GREEK didomi


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Your error is that you use translation to define words.

I use lexicons (that’s a Greek dictionary; perhaps you didn’t know that) to define how to translate a Greek word into English.


Doug

 

[jeremiah1five]

Luke 22:47While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”


Jesus said he betrayed him!


Doug

Yes, what did he do?

 

[jeremiah1five]

I use lexicons (that’s a Greek dictionary; perhaps you didn’t know that) to define how to translate a Greek word into English.


Doug

You’re using translation as definition. We don’t get doctrine from translation.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I use lexicons (that’s a Greek dictionary; perhaps you didn’t know that) to define how to translate a Greek word into English.


Doug

We don’t get doctrine from translation.

 

[TibiasDad]

You're not using it correctly.

Let’s see…you get a dictionary (that’s a lexicon for actual students of the word); then you go to the page where the word you are looking for is (it’s in alphabetical order for those unfamiliar); then you read the information written about the particular word in question.

Depending on the word, it might tell you about its frequency of use; the variant meanings in various syntactic combinations, such as the difference cases- Aorist, Dative, Genitive, etc, etc. (This is especially true of Greek lexicons, which considers both biblical usage as well as usage in secular writings of the same timeline. Cases, by the way will affect the interpretation of the word in question as to what it means specifically in those instances. Word to the wise…)

That’s how you use it correctly!

PS: It also is quite helpful if you are willing to accept that the defined meaning might not be what you want it to be, and adjust your thinking accordingly. I know, it’s hard to do, but I’ve had to do it many times myself, and it always works out to my benefit in the long run.


Doug

 

[jeremiah1five]

Let’s see…you get a dictionary (that’s a lexicon for actual students of the word); then you go to the page where the word you are looking for is (it’s in alphabetical order for those unfamiliar); then you read the information written about the particular word in question.

Depending on the word, it might tell you about its frequency of use; the variant meanings in various syntactic combinations, such as the difference cases- Aorist, Dative, Genitive, etc, etc. (This is especially true of Greek lexicons, which considers both biblical usage as well as usage in secular writings of the same timeline. Cases, by the way will affect the interpretation of the word in question as to what it means specifically in those instances. Word to the wise…)

That’s how you use it correctly!

PS: It also is quite helpful if you are willing to accept that the defined meaning might not be what you want it to be, and adjust your thinking accordingly. I know, it’s hard to do, but I’ve had to do it many times myself, and it always works out to my benefit in the long run.


Doug

We don’t get doctrine from translation. You’re confusing the definition.

 

[TibiasDad]

You’re using translation as definition. We don’t get doctrine from translation.

Nope, the other way around: start with the original language’s definition and find the same word or words in English that match that original usage. Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic always first, then the English equivalent. Not hard to understand: You can do it!!! (I know it’s tough to do if you haven’t studied the language. It’s never too late to learn!)


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

You’re confusing the definition.

You’re changing it to fit your conclusion. In logic we call that a circular argument.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

We don’t get doctrine from translation.

Then from whence do we get doctrine of not from the words themselves? Like Paul said regarding speaking in tongues, it is meaningless unless someone interprets what the words spoken mean! Translating is the first step in understanding!


Doug

 

[jeremiah1five]

Then from whence do we get doctrine of not from the words themselves? Like Paul said regarding speaking in tongues, it is meaningless unless someone interprets what the words spoken mean! Translating is the first step in understanding!


Doug

We get our doctrine from the Scripture in the original languages: Greek and Hebrew (a little Chaldee and Aramaic.)
Understanding the language and the word meanings of the time.

That has to do with tongues but it's not the tongue being translated. It's the interpretation given by the Spirit. In this our understanding is disconnected. Those to whom the Spirit gives the interpretation is not understanding the tongue. It is submitting to the Spirit and being given the interpretation separately from our understanding the tongue.

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1 Corinthians 14:2.

14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1 Corinthians 14:14.

The interpreter of the tongue does not interpret because he/she understands the tongue, he/she interprets as the Spirit gives the utterance. A complete disconnect from understanding the tongue.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Then from whence do we get doctrine of not from the words themselves? Like Paul said regarding speaking in tongues, it is meaningless unless someone interprets what the words spoken mean! Translating is the first step in understanding!


Doug

We get our doctrine from the words and the grammar. There are other literary devices involved, too. Adjective, verb, adverb, noun, etc. Then there are the senses. But this is Greek and Hebrew and because the Scripture is written to believers, the unbeliever cannot come to the knowledge of the truth because the Spirit is necessary and the unsaved do not have the Spirit and cannot consistently receive the revelation and the knowledge of the text. Oh, an unbeliever can interpret John 11:35 "Jesus wept." But it is the Spirit that brings the edification (building up) from glory to glory. It is the believer that loves God and His Word that are more readily able to understand the Word of God and build doctrine "a little here, a little there", precept by precept, etc.

Since you don't understand how you are confusing the language and the definition you posted I will tell you.

betray: Strong's [#3860]
Greek Word: παραδίδωμι
Transliteration: paradidōmi
Part of speech: verb

it's a compound word: from [#3844] (para) and [#1325] (didomi); to surrender, i.e. yield up, intrust, transmit:- betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend.

This is how it is written in the concordance. Your error is that you are including the words past the colon/dash as the definition. It is not part of the definition. The words beyond the colon/dash are words used in the text that are part of the translation, not the definition.

English Words used in KJV:
deliver 53 times
betray 40
deliver up 10
give 4
give up 4
give over 2
commit 2
miscellaneous translations 6 times
[Total Count: 121]

Do you understand now your error?

 

[Rockerduck]

I'd say you don't believe Peter who says under the anointing the angels that sinned are locked up awaiting judgment.

I can also claim spiritual oppression and suppression but these are of the 'spirit' (attitudes) of men.

Unsaved man is the enemy of God. The thing I see when Jesus dealt with "possessed" men was give them an attitude adjustment. Then He was able to address the mental conditions of these ignorant people.

If you read 2 Peter 2:5 it clarifies that 2 Peter 2:4 is talking about before the flood. Peter is saying God locked up the angels before the flood and will do it again later. 2 Peter 2:9 Peter talks about the day of Judgement, which further clarifies Peter is talking about a future date.

 

[jeremiah1five]

If you read 2 Peter 2:5 it clarifies that 2 Peter 2:4 is talking about before the flood. Peter is saying God locked up the angels before the flood and will do it again later. 2 Peter 2:9 Peter talks about the day of Judgement, which further clarifies Peter is talking about a future date.

Verse 4 and verse 5 are two separate and different occasions and different times.

One event: (already past.)
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Another event: (already past.)
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4–5.

A flood is not a future event. Let's look at 2 Peter 2:9.

Another event: (past, present, and future.)
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2 Peter 2:9.

At the time 2 Peter was written the Lord had ALREADY (past) delivered the godly out of temptations and will continue to do so (present), and the unjust on the day of judgment (future.)

The angels that sinned and were locked up occurred BEFORE God created man. I know the prevailing Gentile theology is that angels (sons of God) married and mated with women (Gen. 6) but that interpretation has many holes in it. Spirit beings who have no genitals nor DNA to transfer out cannot mate with material women. Angels do not participate in HOLY matrimony with human women. God decreed that in this creation we and animals mate with like kind "after their kind" and produce offspring. It is impossible for spirit beings with no genitals to mate with material beings (women.) At any rate you're conflating 2 Peter verse 4 with verse 5.

 

[Rockerduck]

Verse 4 and verse 5 are two separate and different occasions and different times.

One event: (already past.)
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Another event: (already past.)
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4–5.

A flood is not a future event. Let's look at 2 Peter 2:9.

Another event: (past, present, and future.)
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2 Peter 2:9.

At the time 2 Peter was written the Lord had ALREADY (past) delivered the godly out of temptations and will continue to do so (present), and the unjust on the day of judgment (future.)

The angels that sinned and were locked up occurred BEFORE God created man. I know the prevailing Gentile theology is that angels (sons of God) married and mated with women (Gen. 6) but that interpretation has many holes in it. Spirit beings who have no genitals nor DNA to transfer out cannot mate with material women. Angels do not participate in HOLY matrimony with human women. God decreed that in this creation we and animals mate with like kind "after their kind" and produce offspring. It is impossible for spirit beings with no genitals to mate with material beings (women.) At any rate you're conflating 2 Peter verse 4 with verse 5.

You go over all details not related. Peter did refer to before the flood and God will do same at Judgement.

 

[TibiasDad]

We get our doctrine from the words and the grammar.

Then you are wrong in your assessment of what scripture says. I have shown you the grammar and the lexical definition and range of meanings. Nobody translates

There are other literary devices involved, too. Adjective, verb, adverb, noun, etc.

These are the parts of speech, not literary devices. Literary devices are things like metaphor, simile, imagery, alliteration, foreshadowing, and symbolism.

Since you don't understand how you are confusing the language and the definition you posted I will tell you.

betray: Strong's [#3860]
Greek Word: παραδίδωμι
Transliteration: paradidōmi
Part of speech: verb

it's a compound word: from [#3844] (para) and [#1325] (didomi); to surrender, i.e. yield up, intrust, transmit:- betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend.

I already posted this to you here. Have you ever taken Greek?

the Scripture is written to believers

Yea, in large part, but it is not just about or for believers; it is for and about everyone in relation to God. When an unbeliever is told the truth by a believer, the Holy Spirit convicts us of the truth about ourselves. That is about the sinner not the believer.

The OT prophets were not sent to saints but sinners. The apostles were sent to preach the gospel to unbelievers, not believers. The gospel is meaningless without sinners being the object. It is given to believers for the sake of the nonbeliever.

Doug