>
>Tony2: Yes, THAT is nonesense. You would not say that "In
>the beginning the word began beginning." Rather, EIMI
>basically means being in a state. If you wanted to take the
>full force of the inception, you would translate it
>something like "In the beginning the Word came to be".
>However, I am perfectly happy with translating it as "was"
>for that does not negate it being inceptive.

Response: 1. An inceptive is used when a change of activity is noted. Do you see this in John 1:1?

2.It is also used when there is a topic shift, does anyone see this in John 1:1?

3. In Toney's translation the Word is the one doing the eimi-ing, so therefore the Word created himself. John 1:1 does not say that the Father created the Word.

4. The only conclusoin is that Tony is forcing the text to say something it was never meant to say. And his only hope is to try to convince somebody that I don't know Greek.

>>Tony2: ROTFL. You have demonstrated nothing. See
>everyone, this is exactly what I'm talking about. He claims
>something and somehow he supposedly demonstrated it. He has
>done nothing more than claim! You still have failed to
>address my points on HN regarding it even if it is not
>inceptive.

Response: Actually I have during out discussions, hen is represeting a *continuous action in the past* since we do not know where the beginning is, (it does not have a point of reference) no matter where it is placed the Word was, meaning the word existed.

The reason why the inceptive does not work is because it is used to illustrate when something begins an action, if the Logos begins the actoin then he has created( i.e. he began himself) himself, therefore your theology is destroyed. And John does not say that the Father began anything. Sorry Tony, you are not making sense.
>
>Tony2: Everyone see it? Osoclasi has done it again.

Response: You mean I have refuted you again?

He
>claims we are trying to personify Christ and we are doing no
>such thing. We are claiming that Christ is the PERSONIFIER
>of Wisdom.

Response: Christ is not mentioned in Proverbs 8, wisdom is, wisdom is the one being personified by Solomon, not Christ. Refuted again.

Is this that difficult of a concept? It is
>interesting that he claims that nobody having the NT would
>conclude that Wisdom was Christ. So what? We do have the
>NT, and so many have concluded the same as me. Some
>examples:

Response: Before Tony tries to destract us with qoutes, notice he offers no exegesis of the texts itself, he whines about misrepensentation, but does not grabble with the text, but instead jumps to the NT.

He responds to my arguement by saying *so what* is that a rebuttal? Get real. WHERE IS THE EXEGESIS???
>
>>Tony2: I did not say that Proverbs says it is Christ.

Response: Good then you agree with me, and are going to give up this crazy idea.


>However, who does Paul say the Wisdom of God is? He says it
>is Jesus (1 Cor. 1:24).

Response: Again WHERE IS THE EXEGESIS OF 1 COR 1:24??????????

Paul is discussing Christ being the wisdom to salvation, not the wisdom to a Godly life like Solomon is doing in Proverbs.

Notice in verse verse 18 discusses the foolishness of the cross to mankind.

verse 20 where is the wise man, God has made foolishness of him with the power of his Son's death.

verse 21 For since wisdom of God came to the world the world's wisdom did not know God

verse 22 Greeks search wisdom, Jews seek signs

verse 23 But we preach Christ cruxifiction (salvation) to Jews it is a stumbling block.

verse 24 BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CALLED (meanign those called to salvation) Christ is the wisdom of God.

verse 26 FOR CONSIDER YOUR CALLING...

So it is clear Christ is wisdom in a different sense than that of wisdom in proverbs 8.


>Tony2: Everyone notice that this is an unsupported claim
>limiting God's creative ability? The verse says Christ is a
>copy of God's being. That means two beings, temporally
>distinct. Pure and simple. Osoclasi is in denial folks.

Response: Ok let's think about this, Tony how do you copy omniscence, omnipresense,all powerful, all wise, eternality, infinite, two seperate beings cannot both be omniscent and omnipresent.
>Tony2: This does not negate the fact that Ehud is assigned
>the title savior. I agree that God works through people,
>but that doesn't change the simple facts.

Response: Actually Ehud context is what is limited, he is only the saviour in the sense of God working through him, but God is the only real true saviour.

>Tony2: LOL all right. Not even close to how you would
>translate HN.. but as we've all seen, you really don't know
>Greek.

Response: I know enough to refute that.