>>Hi all,
>>
>>Osoclasi has been placed in a corner on multiple points that
>>he now cannot escape.
>
>Response: LOL, don't flatter yourself so quickly.

Tony2: No flattery needed. Just stating the facts.

>>
>>1) He has confessed that HN is used inceptively at John
>>1:10, but based on nothing more than his theological
>>presupposition does he deny it for verse 1. 1 John 1:1
>>supports the use of it inceptively as well. Unless he can
>>demonstrate a grammatical reason as to why we should not
>>take HN inceptively in verse 1, he is out of luck and out of
>>time. His simple opinion is not a reason!
>
>Response: Actually I have been corrected by my professors at
>my seminary that JOhn 1:10 is not an inceptive imperfect, I
>thought it was but it is not. Tony did not tell you what it
>really is however, an inceptive imperfect illustrates
>someone beginning to start an action, like Mark 9:20
>
>He fell on the ground and *began* rolling about...
>
>Now I ask, does this look anything like John 1:1. "In the
>beginning the word began beginning" that is nonsense. But
>tony has to make it fit and it does not.

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.


>>
>>2) With his inability to demonstrate a single purely
>>qualitative singular count noun in scripture, and unable to
>>accept QEOS in John 1:1 as definite (for that is modalism),
>>he has no choice but to accept that QEOS is classified here
>>as qualitative-indefinite and that the NWT is an acceptable
>>translation. Unless he can demonstrate such a noun, any
>>denial will be based purely on his theological
>>presupposition and not on grammar.
>
>Response: Actually Tony has to demonstrate that Theos cannot
>be used qualitatively, since we both now that it can, I am
>not outside any grammaticle rules of Greek grammer when I
>say this.
>

Tony2: YOU are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I am not the one claiming that QEOS in John 1:1c is purely qualitative, YOU are. YOU are the one that must demonstrate YOUR claim that a purely qualitative count noun even exists! Until you do that, you have no foundation to stand on.


>Futhermore, since I have demosntrated that John 1:1 is not
>inceptive but a normal imperfect, (a continuous action in
>the past) the Logos is therefore not created but there fully
>no matter where the beginning was.

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.

>
>In the beginnign was the Logos...
>
>Now I ask which one makes more sense?
>>
>>3) Osoclasi has demonstrated a complete lack of
>>understanding when it comes to gender and translation. He
>>insists Wisdom is Proverbs 8 is a woman, ignoring the fact
>>that this is based on grammatical gender, not natural
>>gender. When it is pointed out that this one is actually a
>>man, as demonstrated by the use of the masculine AMON in
>>verse 30, he ignores this point, for it defeats his
>>position.
>
>Response: First of all, Wisdom is being personified, Tony
>wants to make this wisdom Christ, but the problem is you
>don't personify humans, they are already persons. Then he
>changes his answer to mean "well Christ personifies wisdom"
>but Christ is not in the text, one would have to read NT
>theology (incorrectly, since Christ is the wisdom unto
>salvation and wisdom in Proverbs is wisdom unto a Godly
>life) into OT text, which no Jew or anyone not having the NT
>would conclude the same as Tony.

Tony2: Everyone see it? Osoclasi has done it 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. 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:

John Gill: "is chapter contains the instructions of Wisdom or Christ; showing the excellency of them, and the author of them, in opposition to the harlot and her allurements, in the preceding chapter. Christ, under the name of Wisdom, is represented as an herald, publishing the Gospel in the ministry of the word, either in person or by his servants..."

Matthew Henry: "Wisdom here is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; it is Christ in the word and Christ in the heart, not only Christ revealed to us, but Christ revealed in us."

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book I, para. 44, 45. "And so Wisdom, after declaring that it is mindful to speak of the things which date from the beginning of the ages, says, The Lord created Me for the beginning of His ways for His works, by these words denoting things performed from the date of the beginning of the ages. . . And first, since Christ is Wisdom, we must see whether He is Himself the beginning of the way of the works of God."

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter VII. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: "The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me."

St. Aurelius Augustin, A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter IV, para. 6. "There is a reference to this in the word, 'The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.' For the beginning of His ways is the Head of the Church, which is Christ..."

Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee explains , “Wisdom is a person, the person of the Lord Christ Jesus . . . Wisdom is Jesus.” On Proverbs 8, the New Jerusalem Bible explains : “John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his Gospel throughout representis Christ as the Wisdom of God…. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees the in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself."



>>
>>4) Faced with the fact that things can be personified in
>>people, Osoclasi has been stuck in denial that Christ can be
>>the one personifying Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Of course
>>flipping to any good dictionary will prove that the
>>definition we have provided for personification is accurate,
>>so he has resorted to strawman tactics to try and save face,
>>saying that "you mean to say that Christ is being
>>represented in Prov 8 by wisdom not vice verse." This is not
>>our position at all. Rather, Christ is the one that
>>personifies Wisdom, so when Wisdom is personified, Christ is
>>the one doing it!
>
>Respnse: Can someone ask Tony where does he see Christ
>personifying wisdom in Proverbs 8? We all know that Solomon
>not Christ is personifying wisdom since he writes about
>wisdom in the first 9 chapters of the book.

Tony2: I did not say that Proverbs says it is Christ. However, who does Paul say the Wisdom of God is? He says it is Jesus (1 Cor. 1:24). Osoclasi, you want to put some type of limitation on this that is simply non-existent in the text. Christ is not the attribute of Wisdom, obviously, but he is the one in whom the attribute is personified.


>>
>>5) He has stuck himself in a state of denial when it comes
>>to Hebrews 1:3. He states that it cannot be true, even
>>though lexically it is very clear that Jesus is a copy or
>>reproduction of God's being! This point was highlighted by
>>the Interpreter's Bible, which states: "It suggests a
>>faithful, and indeed a detailed, reproduction of the nature
>>of God." He has been forced to deny this based on his
>>theological presupposition that God is three persons in one
>>being, for this shows us that there are two beings
>>(hUPOSTASIS). In all of this, he has provided plenty of
>>denial, but he as given no grammatical basis for doing so.
>
>Response: Notice Tony does not address nor mention my
>rebuttal, now ask yourself WHO CAN HAVE THE BEING OF GOD?
>Noone, if Christ is a copy of the nature of God (excate
>copy to be excate) then he is omniscent,omnipresent, all
>powerful etc. A creation would only be a poor copy of God.
>>

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.

>>6) Forced with facing that Isaiah 40-46 is contextually
>>limited, Osoclasi has denied that Ehud was a savior, even
>>though scripture says in no uncertain terms he was!
>>
>>Judges 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto
>>Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a savior, Ehud the son o
>>Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of
>>Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.
>
>Response: No where near trouble, because we know that GOd
>works thru people, therefore God can still be called the
>only saviour, not Ehud because without God's power Ehud was
>nothing, but what he really is a vehicle.

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.

>>
>>Obviously Osoclasi is in trouble, though he may deny that as
>>well. As anyone reading this can tell, he denies many
>>things, but he never provides more than opinion for doing
>>so. I believe he has only once quoted from a Grammar, and
>>that was to provide a definition, not for refutation. He
>>has never quoted a lexicon, never demonstrate a point.
>>Opinion does not get you far, but for some reason Osoclasi
>>seems to think (or at least has thus far acted) as if his
>>opinion is the final word on the matter. If Osoclasi is
>>unable to demonstrate his position (instead of just
>>insisting on it, which is all that he has done thus far), he
>>might want to begin re-evaluating his view of God and Jesus.
>
>Response: Actually I have qouted from the BADG, and from
>Daniel Wallace, so TOny is off here, I have given defintions
>of what an inceptive imperfect is, but Tony ignores that.
>And all Tony is doing is repeating himself and unable to
>defend his points. The only reason why he thinks he is
>doing something is because he gets to the computer faster
>because I have class and work, now read the above and ask
>yourself does
>

Tony2: I credited you for the definition of the inceptive imperfect. I was actually going to post that myself, so you did it for me. The problem is, you haven't delt with the facts. You just make up stuff as you go, giving us a nice opinion, but completely failing to substantiate it. You've claimed that HN is not inceptive, but your argument against it was entirely unsolidified and laughable at best. I have provided solid reasoning on why HN here is imperfect, you fail to address it. There are many other things that any honest read is able to see you are failing to provide a sufficient answer for, such as Hebrews 1:3, the use of AMON, ect.

>in the beginning the logos began beginning make sense? LOL.

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.

Regards,
Tony