Hello JGIG,
It is now ABUNDANTLY clear that you have failed to understand my position.
Therefore, your criticism of my position fails.
SO AGAIN: HERE IS THE ARGUMENT DISPROVING JGIG'S ANTI-TORAH THEOLOGY
1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).
Now, you betray your ignorance by claiming: "You've repeatedly tried to redefine a word in two separate Scriptures and try to make them mean Torah, when those specific words in the original language do not have Torah as any of their definitions. That's faulty methodology, clearly. You cannot go 'round redefining Biblical words."
My response: WHICH PREMISE (of the 11 premises above) REDEFINES A BIBLICAL WORD?
The answer, of course, is NONE! (Thus you are ignorant of my reasoning structure and its logical implications).
I NEVER redefined a word.
I NEVER said "rhema" or "motsa" is DEFINED as Torah.
YOU never proved I DEFINED “rhema” or “motsa” as “Torah”.
That’s merely an unsupported allegation.
Therefore, you have FAILED to understand my position, and you’ve FAILED to justify your position.
You wrote: "The Greek word, 'graphe' means written Scriptures. Of course it includes Torah."
My response: WATCH AND LEARN! "Graphe" is not DEFINED as Torah! Rather, "graphe" REFERS to that which includes Torah.
THEREFORE, a word can REFER to TORAH even though it is not DEFINED as Torah.
Likewise, "rhema" can REFER to that which includes Torah, even though it is not DEFINED as TORAH.
CONCLUSION: If you claim I redefined "rhema" by allowing it to include reference to that which includes Torah, then YOU HAVE ALSO REDEFINED "GRAPHE" by allowing it to include reference to that which includes Torah.
Thus, you have employed a linguistic interpretive method, while simultaneously criticizing me for using the SAME METHOD!
A hypocrite tells others NOT to do something (yet they do the same thing!)
Sad…
You wrote: "No, and neither '
rhema' nor '
mowsta' refer to the written Word of God, but to the leading of God as the Source of some direction."
My response: NONSENSE! "Rhema" can refer to that which God has SPOKEN! And guess what? God SPOKE the Torah! Therefore, "rhema" refers to that which includes TORAH!
The written Torah of Moses includes a written record OF WHAT GOD HAS SPOKEN AS RHEMA.
Your denial of this plain and obvious fact PROVES you are hardened and resistant to truth.
Where do you think “rhema” comes from? The verb “reo” (G4483).
And guess what, dear JGIG? Jesus uses REO (from which “rhema” is derived) to describe the WRITTEN TORAH (see Jesus’ use of “reo” in Mt. 5:27 when quoting the WRITTEN TORAH found in Ex. 20:14).
Did Jesus DEFINE “reo” as Torah? Of course not.
Did Jesus REFER to Torah as being spoken (“reo”)? YES!!
Again, this proves that the written Torah of Moses was SPOKEN AND WRITTEN. Thus, we can use “reo” (or “rhema”) to refer to that written Torah.
Again, this disconfirms your claim that the written Torah of Moses can’t be referenced by “rhema” (or, for that matter, “reo”), despite Jesus explicit reference to WRITTEN TORAH via “reo” in Mt. 5:27.
Have I DEFINED “reo” as Torah? Of course not….and neither did Jesus.
Did Jesus REFER to Torah using “reo”? Of course. Jesus confirms the Torah was SPOKEN, thus He used “reo” (from which “rhema” is derived).
But of course, your “object vs. definition” confusion will surely lead you to garble these Scriptural facts into another anti-Torah tirade…I’m sure.
I suspect you’ll falsely accuse me (and, thus, Jesus) of DEFINING “reo” as Torah, even though JESUS AND I NEVER DID ANY SUCH THING!
You wrote: "Of course not, because 'graphe' is not
limited to Torah, though it does
include Torah."
My response: Likewise, "rhema" is not LIMITED to Torah, though it does include reference to that which INCLUDES Torah.
You wrote: " 'BibleGuy, 'object vs. definition' is not a thing. You're making that up."
My response: WRONG! This again betrays your failure to understand VERY BASIC linguistic concepts.
Words have DEFINITIONS and they also have an OBJECTIVE REFERENCE.
You have confused DEFINITION with REFERENCE.
We agree "rhema" is not DEFINED as Torah. But does that prove "rhema" can not refer to that which includes Torah? Of course not.
These are TWO DISTINCT CONCEPTS.
Yet you claim this distinction "...is not a thing. You're making that up."
NONSENSE! Your unbiblical anti-Torah tirade has driven you to deny the very distinction between OBJECT and DEFINITION.
Sad.....very sad.....
You wrote: "BibleGuy, your position has no basis in linguistic reality. It is correct to reject your position, not because I don't understand it, but because it is foundationally flawed."
My response: You're a pretty funny gal!
You pretend to understand linguistic foundations? Yet you deny the very distinction between "definition" and "object"!
Remember? You said it's "not a thing. You're making that up."
So YES, you do NOT understand what you're talking about.
You confusion continues....for you wrote: "Actually, you did define mowtsa and rhema as Torah, though you did not go back to the Hebrew for Deut. 8:3, but to the LXX:"
And then you quote me, when I said: "
You are wrong. The term “rhema” is straight out of Dt. 8:3 (which Jesus was quoting!). Read it in the LXX, and you’ll see! The LXX uses “rhema” (Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH’s mouth. This is TORAH!"
Are you ready to think? You can do it!
The quote of me (immediately above) has me claiming that "rhema" REFERS TO (not DEFINES) that which comes from YHVH's mouth.
Can you READ IT? I said REFERS. Not DEFINES.
Yet you ignorantly conflate the two ideas, wrongly declaring I was DEFINING.
Again, you simply don't get it. You didn’t even READ what I wrote.
I said REFERS (not DEFINES).
That’s where you FAIL to understand.
NO WONDER you are afraid to tell us which specific premise you deny (or why)!
It's because you don't even understand my argument, its terms, its logical structure, or its implications.
So its safer for you to simply REFUSE to permit us to test your position.
Ok...that's a fail.
Your position has FAILED the test.
You wrote: "BibleGuy, you have not presented sound evidence; you've presented an inappropriate redefinition of terms which attempts to rewrite Scripture. I'm really okay rejecting that."
My response: Are you "really okay" erecting a straw man, tearing it down, and then pretending it applies to my position?
Is that your conception of “sound evidence”?
Sad…even tragic…
You wrote: "Test all you like. I'm content to let God and the reader judge between us."
My response: Frightfully...that judgment is coming forth against you, JGIG.
You have no excuse.
You've been warned at least four times now.
And yet you REFUSE to allow us to test your position.
You REFUSE to tell us which of the 11 premises you reject.
You REFUSE to tell us WHY you reject a particular of the 11 premises.
And you REFUSE to learn from my diligent efforts which repeatedly expose your rational failings.
And nobody else, here, has bothered to justify your “object vs. definition” confusion either.
Well then…birds of a feather…
BibleGuy
.
