James Duguid 𓀐 𓆉

@ReformedPolemic @RevJeffreyChoi If she was a letter carrier wouldn't she be the diakonos "of Paul" instead of "of the church in Cenchrea"? That's what makes it sound like ecclesiastical position to me - its defined relative to a particular church in a particular locality.

@RevJeffreyChoi It doesn’t have to be an official title so much as a formal designation for the specific purpose, right? (Commissioning I guess). That’s what your BDAG quote seemed to indicate as an option if letter carrier is a relevant definition (I listened to your debate with Matt).

After coming out with overture 37, I've engaged with many in the denomination. I've heard the cultural and historical arguments, and I have been enlightened. However, no one has engaged deeply with the Greek. Here's my first challenge. A thread. 🧵

@maklelan @conservmillen @ThoughtfulSaint (2/2) Doesn't this make Philo a *sort of* monotheist? An early representative of the opinion held later by Origen's "many"?

@maklelan @conservmillen @ThoughtfulSaint Thanks! Also, I like that you used the full quote from Philo. One thing I've wondered about the recent "monotheism" research is why many cite Philo's "second god" phrase but not his claim that *the* God is the only *true* God, and others are called so only figuratively. (1/2)

The Bible says we will become gods? @conservmillen @ThoughtfulSaint #maklelan3268 youtu.be/jmOPO_gB00M

@pastorgrumbles I assume either powerful humans or an ambiguous interpretation. But given the Rabbinic interpretation is based on “God” > “powerful” when applied to humans, I would say Symmachus aligns pretty well with that interpretation.

@death2theturtle Yes, I'm addressing a claim that the rabbis changed the angelic view to be anti-Christ. The claim included that until Augustine no Christian held the humans view. The latter is demonstrably false. Symmachus is interesting, though I guess impossible to prove what he really meant.

It is incorrect that for the first 350 years all of the early church takes the angelic view of Genesis 6. Julius Africanus, late 2nd/early 3rd c., took the Sethite view (see Fragment 2). Sure, the angelic view was argued by numerous early fathers, but not every single one.

@pastorgrumbles Also, passions already ran high on the topic: "Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai called them “the children of judges.” Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai used to curse anyone who would call them “children of god." sefaria.org/Bereshit_Rabba…

@pastorgrumbles You will notice that the angelic interpretation is evidenced earliest in both Christian and Jewish tradition, though there is earlier evidence for alternative views in early Rabbinic Judaism - that could change if more was added to the list tho!

@scottrswain @chrisryankugler @crispinfl Uh, no love for Isaiah 49:4? There’s more than one Servant Song!

@chrisryankugler @crispinfl What do you think of Bauckham’s argument that self “emptying” is drawn from Isaiah 53’s “pouring out”?

I’m inclined to think that @crispinfl is right about Greco-Roman mythology as the primary context of Phil 2.6-8. But I do think that Isaiah begins to be important from 2.9 to 2.11; but the latter is less perceptible if we are only looking at LXX. He is working directly from Hebrew.

@sassiterian I actually think there is a case to be made for the office of doctor, as in classic Reformed ecclesiologies - but I’ll wait until next year to send an overture

Have we considered sending up an overture adding the optional office of Apostle to the PCA? Seems we could use more overtures. #terribleideas

@KenShepherd True. It's a lot of fun though!

@death2theturtle But the Book of Enoch is not canonical. Not even Rome considers it thus.

I’ll stick with holy scripture thanks.

New blog post!

@KenShepherd @Seth_Troutt So "women" in Isaiah 3:12 is at least textually very tenuous and likely just the wrong reading. Information patriarchal types rarely present when discussing it.

@KenShepherd @Seth_Troutt Based on internal criteria, "infants/women" would link back to 3:4 - the problem of "child" rulers. But a reference to economic oppression fits better with the close context of vv.13-15. Better to take it as "creditors", with v.12 introducing the subject of economic oppression...

From a seminary paper I wrote: The ESV renders Isaiah 3:9, 12 as “They proclaim their sin like Sodom…they have brought evil upon themselves…My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them!” This rendering in the ESV is incorrect. There is a well-documented textual problem in 3:12 – the word for infant (nogeshow) is similar to extortioners (nageshim). Also, the next word in the MT begins with an mem, thus the “m” at the end of extortioners would likely have been dropped out not added in; in addition, the word for women (wenashaem) is similar to the word creditors (wenoshim). Thus, because the second difference is only vowellular and the prior is consonantal, the later would be predicated on the former and the two nouns are in parallel. Therefore, as it is more likely that a mem would drop out than be added in, it is thus more likely that the best rendering of the verse is: “My people - the extortioners oppress them and creditors rule over them.” -- Our credit card and national debt is the tell that God is judging our nation per Isaiah 3. Seminary is important; where you go to seminary is also important. [ps I like where @MBTS is headed]