This is a discussion of whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical or not. I am a trinitarian and will be defending the doctrine, (along with others I guess) Malachi (and others) will be going against the doctrine.

I will be using both Hebrew and Greek grammer, if there is something that is confusing, feel free to inbox me. And please if you are not interested do not slander the post with nonsense, please if you don't care, just chill out. Ok let's begin...

Introduction:
You've heard it all before. "The Trinity is pagan! It came from Vishnu, Brahma, and can't think of the other gods name, or it comes from Osirus, Isis, and Horus, or some other three ring god etc. Or my favorite, is that in 325 A.D. the catholic church along with Constantine (who was not a Theologian and could care less) got together and conspired to make God three persons. (Even though there are first and second century Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis who believed in the Deity of Christ). And finally, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (although the word Bible is not found in the Bible either, but that never stopped anyone.)

The problem is that many people do not fully understand what the trinity is saying, nor understand how to defend it. The trinity is not the same as those of other cultures, and hopefully, when I am finished explaining what it really means there will be no confusion.

So what is the definition of the trinity...

Within the one *Being* that is God, there exist eternally three co-equal and co-eternal *persons*, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Notice that I astericks around the word Being and Person. This is where the many errors are made, especially when comparing the Trinity to other pagan gods.

Everything that exist has being, but not everything has person.

We are called human beings, because we have attributes that make us human. Example, hands, nose, eyes, hair etc.

Trees have the Being of trees, rocks have the being of rocks, dogs have the being of dogs. Example: Fur, tail etc. Here is a qoute from James White NT scholar...

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

Therefore we say that there is one Being who is God.

Now that, that is clear, I said everything that exist has being, but not person. But what is person? I am a human being, we all are, but I am the only osoclasi on earth, my person makes me osoclasi, however, I am finite and exist only in one body, God however is infinite and can exist in three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within the one being that is God.

Therefore Jesus is not the Father, but yet shares that being of the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, but yet shares the being of the Spirit. The Father sent the Son, the Son loves and prays to the Father, the Holy Spirit points nonbelievers to Christ yet shares the nature of Christ. This is different from pagan gods, because with Vishnu, Brahma etc, Vishnu turns into Brahma and vice versa, they are not different persons, but rather different modes of the same god. As far as Isis and Osirus, they are totally different gods (polytheism). These type of distinctions can be made with all of the gods accused of being trinities.


Futhermore, I will be using the words Being/Essenc/Entity interchangeablly.

Just for support that I got the definition of the trinity correct notice our church creeds even though they are not scripture (i will get into that later) they futher my definitions.

Athanasian Creed states...

4. Neither confounding the Person nor dividing the *substance*.
5. For there is one Person one Person the Father, another the Son, and another the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated: The Son uncreated: and such is the Holy Spirit.

Notice, the distinction between substance (being) and person. All of Christian church creeds define the trinity as such, and I can provide more if necessary.

But all of this would be no good without Biblical support. Where do we begin? Everyone agrees that the Father is God, but what about the Son? And the Holy Spirit?

For the Son, a verse that is very popular is John 1:1 it says.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Malachi will no doubt try to convince you that it should read an the Word was a god. But the Greek grammer does not demand such, but more on that later. Notice however, that the Word was *with* God, this illustrates that the Word was intimate with God, and then John turns around and says that the word was God.

Does this make sense? It does if we understand when the Word is called God, John is refering to the Being of the Word.

So the Word was with the person who is called the Father, and is the very nature or being of the Father, therefore he is fully in his being God. I will get into the Greek grammer later on.

Other passages that call Jesus God are Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

For the Holy Spirit we have Acts 5:3-4, where lying to the Holy Spirit is equavalent to lying to God.

Acts 5:3
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

I will get into more scripture and grammer later on, but we see that the Trinity is Biblical and not pagan. And don't worry I will answer all of those verses about the Father being greater than the Son, and called the one True God, and the Son praying or not knowing the day and hour etc when they are brought up.

Where does it say Jesus is the Word? Are you just assuming that, or is there some other reference to him as such?

And your distiction of the Trinity as one being with 3 distinct persons being different from the other "pagan" trinities... well, in Hinduism, doesn't within the one being/essence/substance that is Brahman, there exist three co-eternal persons, namely, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? I realize there are differences, but the being vs. person thing seems to work just as well for the Hindu Trimurti as it does the Christian Trinity.

And just out of curiousity: what authority, if any, do you give to church creeds like the one you mentioned?

(And bible just means book, but you already know that.)

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

>Where does it say Jesus is the Word? Are you just assuming
>that, or is there some other reference to him as such?

Response: Well it should be noted that John 1:1 should be read all the way through verse 18. This is what is called a *book end* Meaning that a statement is made in the beginning and some more points are made in the middle and then the last verse repeats the theme of the first.

The reason why we know the Word is Christ is because of the way the Word is described within this bookend. First of all he is called the *light* (which is a common theme in this gospel)

John 1:4
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Jesus himself later on calls himself the light of the world in John's gospel. (John 8:12). And the word is also called the true light in verse 9.

Secondly in verse 7, John was suppose to be a witness to the light.

John 1:7
He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

And we know from the narrative that John was a witness for Christ and no one else.

In verse 11 says ...

John 1:11
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

We know the story of how Israel rejected him etc.

Finally the Word became flesh for our sakes, but also the word has to the only begotten of the Father...

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So this word became flesh and dwelt among us and was God's only begotten. Well there is only one person who fits that criteria, that is Jesus.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.


>And your distiction of the Trinity as one being with 3
>distinct persons being different from the other "pagan"
>trinities... well, in Hinduism, doesn't within the one
>being/essence/substance that is Brahman, there exist three
>co-eternal persons, namely, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? I
>realize there are differences, but the being vs. person
>thing seems to work just as well for the Hindu Trimurti as
>it does the Christian Trinity.

Response: Shiva that is it, I forgot the name of the other god. But back to the point, no I don't think the word person would fit in their system at all. Because Brahman would not be considered a personal god. Here is a qoute I found...

BUT: Brahman is not a being in the sense that Christians think of God as a being - Brahman is entirely impersonal, and entirely impossible to describe.

Everything in the universe is part of Brahman, (including each one of us), but Brahman is more than the sum of everything in the universe.

http://www.pearls.org/hinduism/hindu_gods.html

So the word person would not fit inside the theology of Hinduism at all. Being might fit but not person, although it seems as though being may have a different meaning in Hinduism. And secondly Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva (thanks) are just different forms of the same god,(sort of like modalism or the illustration of solid,liquid, gas, an interesting side note, this is how T.D. Jakes defines the trinity, let's ya know the current state of theology in the church, yikes.) within the trinity all three persons exist at the same time, all are personal, and all share the same will or purpose.
>
>And just out of curiousity: what authority, if any, do you
>give to church creeds like the one you mentioned?

Response: Well I don't give them the same authority that I give the Bible, for I believe the Bible alone is inspired. However, I do feel that they are highly valuable, they are great for study and are great for giving complete statments about what Christians believe. However, I do not think they are infallible by any means, but should be read by all who profess Christianity.
>
>(And bible just means book, but you already know that.)

Response: Yep.

verse from the Rik Veda:
"In the beginning was Brahman
with whom was the Word
and the Word was truly the supreme Brahman."

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God."

I thin the Rik Veda precedes John by about three thousand years...

>verse from the Rik Veda:
>"In the beginning was Brahman
>with whom was the Word
>and the Word was truly the supreme Brahman."
>
>I thin the Rik Veda precedes John by about three thousand
>years...

Response: Ya got a source? Or even a verse? Or a website or something, I tried to find that verse and could not.

>Response: Ya got a source? Or even a verse? Or a website or
>something, I tried to find that verse and could not.

Orignal verse: PRAJAPATHI VAI AGRE ASSET; TASYA VAI DVITIYA ASEET; VAG VAI PARAMA BRAHMAN

the book (Rik Veda) itself is not online...but this is what a quick seach turns up...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=In+the+beginning+was+Brahman%2C+with+whom+was+the+Word.+And+the+Word+is+Brahman

>Orignal verse: PRAJAPATHI VAI AGRE ASSET; TASYA VAI DVITIYA
>ASEET; VAG VAI PARAMA BRAHMAN
>

Response: Looks to me that the Word there is not being used in the same sense as John is using it. The word looks to be somesort actual words coming out of his, as opposed to John who is refering to another person who was personal.

the personal aspect and usage of "the Word" aside, it's basically the exact same passage. It would *really* be a stretch to say that John didn't incorporate it into his writing.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

>the personal aspect and usage of "the Word" aside, it's
>basically the exact same passage. It would *really* be a
>stretch to say that John didn't incorporate it into his
>writing.
>

Response: Oh he may have incorporated the pattern of the verse into his writtings, and used it for his own theology. And quirked it in order to make the Logos personal, but I was saying I don't think that John meant the same thing as that verse did.

In John's writtings he is trying to make sure that we know that logos is personal and the light of the world and the Messiah. That is his goal. But alot of Biblical writters incorporate writtings from other places and flip it for there theology.

>In John's writtings he is trying to make sure that we know
>that logos is personal and the light of the world and the
>Messiah. That is his goal. But alot of Biblical writters
>incorporate writtings from other places and flip it for
>there theology.

As long as you acknowledge that. Many apologists don't.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

>The reason why we know the Word is Christ is because of the
>way the Word is described within this bookend. First of all
>he is called the *light* (which is a common theme in this
>gospel)

Yeah, I know about him being called the light (that's the translation of my last name actually).

>Jesus himself later on calls himself the light of the world
>in John's gospel. (John 8:12). And the word is also called
>the true light in verse 9.

OK, didn't know the Word was referred to specifically as the light as well. What does that verse 9 say exactly?

>So this word became flesh and dwelt among us and was God's
>only begotten. Well there is only one person who fits that
>criteria, that is Jesus.

OK, yeah, that makes sense. I remember that verse now, just forgot about it.

>Response: Shiva that is it, I forgot the name of the other
>god. But back to the point, no I don't think the word
>person would fit in their system at all. Because Brahman
>would not be considered a personal god. Here is a qoute I
>found...

>So the word person would not fit inside the theology of
>Hinduism at all. Being might fit but not person, although
>it seems as though being may have a different meaning in
>Hinduism.

By the definition of being vs. person you gave, it would seem to fit. Certainly the Hindu concept of Brahman is quite different from the Christian concept of God, but Brahman does have being/essence/substance according to your definition (Everything that exists has being, but not everything has person). And Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva do have person. Granted, the being/essence/substance of Brahman is quite different from that of the Christian God, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have being at all, just that it's being/essence/substance is different. Same for the persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva vs. Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

You said that "God however is infinite and can exist in three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within the one being that is God." - well, that basic framework also works in Hinduism: Brahman is infinite, and can exist in the three persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, which refer to personal distinctions within the one being/essence/substance that is Bhraman. Note that I am not saying that Brahman is the same as God, or that Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are the same as Father/Son/Holy Spirit; what I am saying is that the being vs. person framework you gave works the same.

>And secondly Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva (thanks)
>are just different forms of the same god,(sort of like
>modalism or the illustration of solid,liquid, gas, an
>interesting side note, this is how T.D. Jakes defines the
>trinity, let's ya know the current state of theology in the
>church, yikes.) within the trinity all three persons exist
>at the same time, all are personal, and all share the same
>will or purpose.

No, the modalism thing doesn't work in Hinduism either. Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva all exist at the same time, they're not like a triple-changer transformer like Blitzwing or Astrotrain (if you remember them) that transforms into one form or the other, but does not co-exist as all 3 simultaneously. I think your conception of Hinduism in that regard is off.

(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D. Jakes guy knows about that.)

>Response: Well I don't give them the same authority that I
>give the Bible, for I believe the Bible alone is inspired.
>However, I do feel that they are highly valuable, they are
>great for study and are great for giving complete statments
>about what Christians believe. However, I do not think they
>are infallible by any means, but should be read by all who
>profess Christianity.

OK, makes sense. I was just wondering about that.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

>
>Yeah, I know about him being called the light (that's the
>translation of my last name actually).

Response: Oh yeah that is interesting.
>
>OK, didn't know the Word was referred to specifically as the
>light as well. What does that verse 9 say exactly?

John 1:9
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

And everytime John refers to the Logos he uses the imperfect tense, to illustrate his eternality. Imperfect tense means a continuous action in the past, i.e I was eating. It is past tense but is continious, evertime John refers to the Logos he uses this tense, and for everything else he uses the aorist tense, which has completion all the way up to verse 18.
>
>By the definition of being vs. person you gave, it would
>seem to fit. Certainly the Hindu concept of Brahman is quite
>different from the Christian concept of God, but Brahman
>does have being/essence/substance according to your
>definition (Everything that exists has being, but not
>everything has person). And Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva do have
>person. Granted, the being/essence/substance of Brahman is
>quite different from that of the Christian God, but that
>doesn't mean that it doesn't have being at all, just that
>it's being/essence/substance is different. Same for the
>persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva vs. Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Response; Let me ask, how can they have person if they are not personal? Unless my qoute was wrong.
>
>You said that "God however is infinite and can exist in
>three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within
>the one being that is God." - well, that basic framework
>also works in Hinduism: Brahman is infinite, and can exist
>in the three persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, which refer to
>personal distinctions within the one being/essence/substance
>that is Bhraman. Note that I am not saying that Brahman is
>the same as God, or that Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are the same as
>Father/Son/Holy Spirit; what I am saying is that the being
>vs. person framework you gave works the same.

Response; Well I would have to take your word on that one. I am not super in depth with the Hindu gods.

>No, the modalism thing doesn't work in Hinduism either.
>Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva all exist at the same time,
>they're not like a triple-changer transformer like Blitzwing
>or Astrotrain (if you remember them) that transforms into
>one form or the other, but does not co-exist as all 3
>simultaneously. I think your conception of Hinduism in that
>regard is off.

Response:Well then again, I am not a hindu scholar. Just know alot bout Christian doctrine and know when I hear something different.
>
>(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the
>triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which
>all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D.
>Jakes guy knows about that.)

Response; Yeah that is true, I forgot about that.
>
>OK, makes sense. I was just wondering about that.

Response; Sure.
>

>Response: Oh yeah that is interesting.

Yeah, Ethiopian names tend to be pretty religious in nature. My dad's full name translates into English as "Son of Zion, born of the Light." But I only got the 'Light' part in my last name... that's what I get for being a heathen I guess. (Although I should have gotten the Son of Zion part instead, but that's a long story)

>And everytime John refers to the Logos he uses the imperfect
>tense, to illustrate his eternality. Imperfect tense means
>a continuous action in the past, i.e I was eating. It is
>past tense but is continious, evertime John refers to the
>Logos he uses this tense, and for everything else he uses
>the aorist tense, which has completion all the way up to
>verse 18.

What's the aorist tense again? I remember you talking about it being some tense in the Greek, but I forget what it is exactly.

>Response; Let me ask, how can they have person if they are
>not personal? Unless my qoute was wrong.

No the quote is right, but it doesn't explain the whole picture: Brahman itself is not personal, but Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are. They each share in the infinite, eternal being/essence/substance of Brahman, but they are individually personal and so have person, while Brahman itself is beyond the personal. It's kinda complicated, but that's how it breaks down to my understanding.

>Response; Well I would have to take your word on that one. I
>am not super in depth with the Hindu gods.

I'm not super in-depth with them either, but that's the basic gist of it.

>Response:Well then again, I am not a hindu scholar. Just
>know alot bout Christian doctrine and know when I hear
>something different.

Well it is still quite different in their nature, but the being vs. personal framework you laid out essentially works the same as far as I can see.

>>(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the
>>triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which
>>all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D.
>>Jakes guy knows about that.)
>
>Response; Yeah that is true, I forgot about that.

Yeah, Christian apologetics should really brush up on their science, they could do a much better job explaining things. Like with explaining how Christ is both human and divine in nature at the same time: the wave-particle duality of light (where the physical nature of light is both a wave and a particle at the same time) plays absolutely perfectly into that, not to mention the "Light" symbolism playing perfectly into it... I'm surprised y'all haven't jumped all over that one already. (jeez, I almost sound like a Christian apologetic there myself - scary!)

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

On a side note ... ive read up a bunch of places that ethiopians pass down there first name, to their child, so if your dad's name was "john smith", your name would be (smith _insert last name). Is this true?? . and is this why you were supposed to get the zion part as your last name?

just wondering ...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, Ethiopian names tend to be pretty religious in nature. My dad's full name translates into English as "Son of Zion, born of the Light." But I only got the 'Light' part in my last name... that's what I get for being a heathen I guess. (Although I should have gotten the Son of Zion part instead, but that's a long story)

The father's first name becomes the childrens' last name. So for example, my dad's name is Tekletsion Tewolde Berhan, so by the Ethiopian way my last name should be Tekletsion. But my mom is American and she preferred doing it the standard Western way with us taking the father's last name, so that's how we did it. Which worked better in the long run I guess, cuz I don't have to constantly hear people butcher my last name the way they do with my father's first name.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

I read your post and that comment about comparing Jesus to light went right over my head. And that stuff about your name is very interesting, but here is some info about the aorist.

Basically it is a use of the past tense that tells us that something happened without a whole lot of detail, and whatever happened is now finished. It is like if I said to you "I ate" I did not tell you what I ate, how good it was, and now I am done eating.

Here is a definition from my Greek Text Book.

The aorist tense " Presents an occurance in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make up of the occurance.

Sometimes people describe it as a snap shot. Like when you take a picture of something.

>Sometimes people describe it as a snap shot. Like when you
>take a picture of something.

Thanks, that was a good analogy. I think I get it now.

>I read your post and that comment about comparing Jesus to
>light went right over my head.

Well, wave-particle duality basically explains that light simultaneously exibits properties of both a wave and a particle. This was long thought to be impossible, classical physics said it had to be either one or the other. So scientists debated over this for centuries, whether light was a wave or a particle. In the 1800's they found proof that it acts like a wave, so it became the widely accepted view that light was a wave. Then Einstein proved that light also acts as a particle (this is actually what he won the Nobel Prize for, not his theory of relativity).

So that really boggled peoples' minds, because they couldn't understand how it could act as both a wave and a particle, since that was counter-intuitive and seemed impossible according to classical physics. It was not fully understood or reconciled theoretically until quantum mechanics fully developed a bit later.

Anyway, the comparison I was making is to the theological debate over the nature of Jesus as to whether he is human, divine, or both at the same time. That was one of the big debates they had in the early church, and it seems to be a major theological point of contention people have against Christians that he can't be both at the same time - I'm sure you've heard that one before.

Anyway, it seems like an interesting parallel to the scientific debate over the nature of light, whether it was a particle, a wave, or both, because scientists used to have the same arguments, they said it had to be either one or the other. But it turned out that it's actually both at the same time.

I don't know if that explained it or just confused you more, but that's what I was talking about.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

But I won't use in a debate or even in a sunday school class, because I'd probably screw it up. The problem is 1) I am not good a science or math. (hence that is why I am in seminary) 2. Most anologies usually fall short when trying to define God since he is infinite. But I'll tell you what if a respected theologian goes first and uses it, I'm all over it. :)

Yeah, unless you already understand the science behind it you probably shouldn't use it. I just thought it was an interesting analogy though.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

Your understanding and description of the spiritual significance of the mysteries of Heru, Ausar, and Auset is inaccurate. As is your understanding of the original practice of the Hindu system. I must go to work, but I will explain later. Hetep.

Is there a Hebrew word for Trinity? One that implies three-in-one, and not just triplet, or three.

>Is there a Hebrew word for Trinity? One that implies
>three-in-one, and not just triplet, or three.

Response: Not to my knowledge, but if there was one, it would be a translation of the trinity and would mean the same thing.

>Response: Not to my knowledge, but if there was one, it
>would be a translation of the trinity and would mean the
>same thing.

There isnt one. Because the concept is unconceivable to the Semetic monotheistic mind. Only when the teachings of jesus reach the Pagans do they get distorted and coopted into a pagan conceptualisation.

>
>There isnt one. Because the concept is unconceivable to the
>Semetic monotheistic mind. Only when the teachings of jesus
>reach the Pagans do they get distorted and coopted into a
>pagan conceptualisation.

Response: LOL, the NT authors were all Jews, and they are the ones explaining the trinity not pagans.

>Response: LOL, the NT authors were all Jews, and they are
>the ones explaining the trinity not pagans.

I thought the word trinity was never in the bible. so is it or isnt it?

>
>I thought the word trinity was never in the bible. so is it
>or isnt it?

Response: I did not say that the word trinity is in the Bible, but rather the apostles explained it through their theology.

where did they say 'three-in-one'? or 'one of three'?

>where did they say 'three-in-one'? or 'one of three'?

Response: It does not say those excate words perse, and actually I never said that it did. The fact remains that scripture calls all three persons God in the highest sense, and it also maintains that there is only one God. That is what I meant by saying that scripture implies trinity.

The trinity is a pagan invention that is not directly or indirectly taught in the Bible...

>The trinity is a pagan invention that is not directly or
>indirectly taught in the Bible...

Response: But it is implied as I have already proven.

"Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.'" John 20:17

does god pray to himself, or worship himself too?

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:16

And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:17

and there again is the command to keep the commandments which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...

the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hhbrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"
B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the city." Hoshea (Hosea) 11:9

>"Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet
>ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them,
>'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND
>YOUR GOD.'" John 20:17
>
>does god pray to himself, or worship himself too?
>Well put Malang
>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what
>good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
>Matthew 19:16
>
>And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS
>NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into
>life, keep the commandments.
>Matthew 19:17
>
>and there again is the command to keep the commandments
>which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...
>
>the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was
>a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on
>and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as
>a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."
>
>"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the
>'son of man/Adam' (a Hhbrew term meaning 'human being' as
>all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent:
>when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken,
>will He not make it good?"
>B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19
>
>"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds
>no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he
>returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish.
>Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in
>YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5
>
>"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not
>return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the
>Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the
>city." Hoshea (Hosea) 11:9

>"Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet
>ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them,
>'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND
>YOUR GOD.'" John 20:17

Response: The arguement is simple if Jesus can speak of His God, then He can't really be God, but must be something less (i.e a creature) who is called God but only in a "sort of fashion". Here is a maxim that needs to be addressed

" Difference in function does not indicate inferiority in nature or Being." Here the Father is described as Jesus' God. Since this is so, Jesus must be some sort of inferior being but go down a couple for verses to John 20:28.

John 20:28
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Here Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God, of course many will want to say that Thomas was swearing, the problem is that Thomas would not dare swear to his rabbi, while his rabbi was standing in front of him, nor would his rabbi condone such actions like Jesus does in the next verse.

John 20:29
Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

All John 20:17 is demonstrating is the fact that the Son is different than the Father. It was the Son who became incarnate, and since the Son, as the perfect man, acknowledged the Father as His God, He, himself, can't be fully deity. The arguement assumes that God could never enter human form. Why? Well, what would the Godman be like? If one person entered into human flesh, how would such a divine person act? Would he be an atheist and not acknowledge the other persons? No of course not, Jesus acts like we would expect him too.

Thomas recognized that Christ was fully God, and just because Jesus (keep in mind he was human) acknowledges his Father as being his God, many want to use this as an arguement against his own deity, however, Jesus is acting like we would expect him to as God-man.
>
>does god pray to himself, or worship himself too?

Response: No but all of creation worships him along with the Father.

Revelation 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

So if all of creation can worship him so can we.
>
>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what
>good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
>Matthew 19:16
>
>And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS
>NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into
>life, keep the commandments.
>Matthew 19:17
>
>and there again is the command to keep the commandments
>which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...

Response; The problem is that Jesus never says that he is not good, he is simply asking the ruler why are you calling me this? he is checking the implications of such a statement.
>
>the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was
>a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on
>and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as
>a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."

Response: Well he was a man, and he was also God.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


>

>Response: The arguement is simple if Jesus can speak of His
>God, then He can't really be God, but must be something less
>(i.e a creature) who is called God but only in a "sort of
>fashion". Here is a maxim that needs to be addressed
>
>" Difference in function does not indicate inferiority in
>nature or Being." Here the Father is described as Jesus'
>God. Since this is so, Jesus must be some sort of inferior
>being but go down a couple for verses to John 20:28.
>
>John 20:28
>Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
>
>Here Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God, of course many
>will want to say that Thomas was swearing, the problem is
>that Thomas would not dare swear to his rabbi, while his
>rabbi was standing in front of him, nor would his rabbi
>condone such actions like Jesus does in the next verse.

he is indeed not swearing, but he is in manner testifying and excaliming surprise and belief to eith both jesus AND to God OR in both cases to God. This is very common in Semitic tradition, even today. you will find arab and hebrew speaking jews, chrisians, and muslims exclaim "my God!" in addition to talking to the person...

>John 20:29
>Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you
>believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet
>believed."
>
>All John 20:17 is demonstrating is the fact that the Son is
>different than the Father. It was the Son who became
>incarnate, and since the Son, as the perfect man,
>acknowledged the Father as His God, He, himself, can't be
>fully deity. The arguement assumes that God could never
>enter human form. Why? Well, what would the Godman be like?
> If one person entered into human flesh, how would such a
>divine person act? Would he be an atheist and not
>acknowledge the other persons? No of course not, Jesus acts
>like we would expect him too.
>
>Thomas recognized that Christ was fully God, and just
>because Jesus (keep in mind he was human) acknowledges his
>Father as being his God, many want to use this as an
>arguement against his own deity, however, Jesus is acting
>like we would expect him to as God-man.

so if its meant to be a lesson for the public, to show them to worship the Almighty God, why does Jesus still pray to God in private? why is there seperation between his will and God's Will? and indeed this is in private, not for the rest. even the apostles stand back and away at this moment...

Matthew 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will."
Matthew 26:42 "My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, then let your will be done."

and then:

You heard me say to you, 'I am leaving, but I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father; for he is greater than I. John 14:28

can two things be equal yet one be greater? please answer without neoplatonic (read: pagan) metaphysics.

>Revelation 5:13
>And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth
>and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them,
>I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the
>Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever
>and ever."
>
>So if all of creation can worship him so can we.

indeed all creation does/should worship the true God, but the above verse is invoking or sending blessings, honor and glory to them. Both the JEws and the Muslims (again that Semetic tradition) also do this to their Prophets as well. it doen not mention worship.

>>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what
>>good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
>>Matthew 19:16
>>
>>And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS
>>NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into
>>life, keep the commandments.
>>Matthew 19:17
>>
>>and there again is the command to keep the commandments
>>which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...
>
>Response; The problem is that Jesus never says that he is
>not good, he is simply asking the ruler why are you calling
>me this? he is checking the implications of such a
>statement.

WHAT? he says "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD" this is clearly referring to himself; and then "BUT GOD" clearly differentiates between himself and God. IF the person of Jesus was implied in "God" why would he say "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?"

>>the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was
>>a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on
>>and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as
>>a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."
>
>Response: Well he was a man, and he was also God.

uh, ok.

>he is indeed not swearing, but he is in manner testifying
>and excaliming surprise and belief to eith both jesus AND to
>God OR in both cases to God. This is very common in Semitic
>tradition, even today. you will find arab and hebrew
>speaking jews, chrisians, and muslims exclaim "my God!" in
>addition to talking to the person...

Response: Again, the expressin *MY GOD* is swearing and taking the Lord's name in vein, he would not make that exclamation in front of his rabbi, especially in light of the ten commandements. You shall not take the Lord's name in vein.

It is more plausible that Thomas was calling him his God since right before it he calls him his Lord. Hard to imagine he is being calm for My Lord and then all of a sudden exclaims my God!!

>so if its meant to be a lesson for the public, to show them
>to worship the Almighty God, why does Jesus still pray to
>God in private?

Response: You are assuming that Jesus prays in the same way that you and I pray, for his prayers are communion and communication for what he must do as a human, especially since only pagans pray in public in order to be seen. ( Matt 6:5)

why is there seperation between his will and
>God's Will? and indeed this is in private, not for the rest.
>even the apostles stand back and away at this moment...

Response: There is no seperation of wills here, for the Son then says, not my will but yours. The Son being human does not want to suffer wrath ask the Father if it is *possible* , he does not go outside of the will of his Father. And that is a resonable question to ask.

>and then:
>
>You heard me say to you, 'I am leaving, but I will come back
>to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going
>to the Father; for he is greater than I. John 14:28
>
>can two things be equal yet one be greater? please answer
>without neoplatonic (read: pagan) metaphysics.

Response: Yes, ( I am going to give a full explaination of this verse later on) But in brief yes, because if one reads all of John 14 Jesus is talking about leaving them,( he is not talking about the Father being a superior being) and he is rebuking them because they have not rejoiced at this fact. Why rejoice? Because he is going to the Father who is greater, meaning that he being a man would no longer be on earth, but will return to the Father who is in a greater position. Therefore they should rejoice, because the Son is going to be re-glorified with the Father, so in short the Father is greater because of where he is, his position was greater than the Son, who was on earth, and now he is going to return to that position that he once shared.

>indeed all creation does/should worship the true God, but
>the above verse is invoking or sending blessings, honor and
>glory to them. Both the JEws and the Muslims (again that
>Semetic tradition) also do this to their Prophets as well.
>it doen not mention worship.

Response: But God says that he does not share his glory with another.

Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images.


Futhermore in light of the ten commandments, we should not worshipp anyone but God, to worship others is committing idolatry. Therefore Jesus has to God otherwise all of creation is committing idolatry.
>>WHAT? he says "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD"
>this is clearly referring to himself; and then "BUT GOD"
>clearly differentiates between himself and God. IF the
>person of Jesus was implied in "God" why would he say "WHY
>CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?"

Response: To check the implicatoin of the one speaking, in other words he is asking the man "Do you really understand what you are saying to me when you call me this?"
>

>Response: Again, the expressin *MY GOD* is swearing and
>taking the Lord's name in vein, he would not make that
>exclamation in front of his rabbi, especially in light of
>the ten commandements. You shall not take the Lord's name
>in vein.

its not swearing. the name shal not be taken 'in vain.' if one is amazed by the works or words of God or a Prophet, esp if it is something beyond belief, it is common in semetic history and culture to excalim "My God!" to both signify belief in God or a Prophet, and to show belief in the work.

>>so if its meant to be a lesson for the public, to show them
>>to worship the Almighty God, why does Jesus still pray to
>>God in private?
>
>Response: You are assuming that Jesus prays in the same way
>that you and I pray, for his prayers are communion and
>communication for what he must do as a human

DOES it matter how he prays? why would 'God' need to pray? prayer AND communication involve TWO.

>especially
>since only pagans pray in public in order to be seen. ( Matt
>6:5)

this is contextually irrelevent here.

> why is there seperation between his will and
>>God's Will? and indeed this is in private, not for the rest.
>>even the apostles stand back and away at this moment...
>
>Response: There is no seperation of wills here, for the Son
>then says, not my will but yours.

My will and Your will. sounds like a seperation to me.

>The Son being human does
>not want to suffer wrath ask the Father if it is *possible*
>, he does not go outside of the will of his Father. And
>that is a resonable question to ask.

Sounds like a Prophet and human servant of God looking and asking God for help and guidance...

>Response: But God says that he does not share his glory with
>another.

i dont get these mental gymnastics. it is easier to multiply Godhood, than to understand who glory is ascribed to? The glory of God is not the same as the Glory of god's Creations, and of God miracles and wonders, and of God's prophets.

>Isaiah 42:8
>"I am the LORD, that is My name;
>I will not give My glory to another,
>Nor My praise to graven images.

MY glory. the Glory that is DUE to God. it doesnt mean that NO ONE ELSE SHALL HAVE GLORY. but you dont ascribe the glory of being Creator, or pray to someone else.

>>>WHAT? he says "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD"
>>this is clearly referring to himself; and then "BUT GOD"
>>clearly differentiates between himself and God. IF the
>>person of Jesus was implied in "God" why would he say "WHY
>>CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?"
>
>Response: To check the implicatoin of the one speaking, in
>other words he is asking the man "Do you really understand
>what you are saying to me when you call me this?"

uh, why dont you share the implication. it seems Jesus is stopping them from ascribing Godhood (or equity) to him.

>
>its not swearing. the name shal not be taken 'in vain.' if
>one is amazed by the works or words of God or a Prophet, esp
>if it is something beyond belief, it is common in semetic
>history and culture to excalim "My God!" to both signify
>belief in God or a Prophet, and to show belief in the work.

Response: You are making stuff up here, it is not common amonst Jews to say *My God* and it be ok. Remember these are the same Jews who don't even pronounce the name of YHWH and replace it with Hashem. So *My God* is taking the name of the Lord in vein.
>
>DOES it matter how he prays? why would 'God' need to pray?
>prayer AND communication involve TWO.

Response; Right two persons were communicating, the Father to the Son. And Jesus does not need prayer, but communication with the Father was a must since he was to be obediant to the Father on earth as a human and became submissive to his will. (Phil 2:7) Notice it says that Christ was in the existance of God and humbled himself, not the Father, but he humbled himself.
>My will and Your will. sounds like a seperation to me.

Response; My will and not your will would be seperation.
>
>Sounds like a Prophet and human servant of God looking and
>asking God for help and guidance...

Response: Since I believe that Jesus was also fully human and a prophet, I have no problem with him asking the Father for guidance while on earth.

>i dont get these mental gymnastics. it is easier to multiply
>Godhood, than to understand who glory is ascribed to? The
>glory of God is not the same as the Glory of god's
>Creations, and of God miracles and wonders, and of God's
>prophets.

Response; Well I agree the glory of GOd is different than the creation, the only problem is the Son recieves the same glory as the Father here...

Revelation 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

>MY glory. the Glory that is DUE to God. it doesnt mean that
>NO ONE ELSE SHALL HAVE GLORY. but you dont ascribe the glory
>of being Creator, or pray to someone else.

Response: Well I agree except here Jesus recieves the same as the Father.

Revelation 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

>
>uh, why dont you share the implication. it seems Jesus is
>stopping them from ascribing Godhood (or equity) to him.

Response: Where do you see Jesus even talking about his own deity or his own nature in that passage.

>Response: Well he was a man, and he was also God.

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hhbrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"
B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the city." Hoshea (Hosea) 11:9


-God IS NOT a man
-AND GOD IS NOT THE SON OF MAN. how many times does Jesus call himself "Son of Man?"

That God could not enter human form. It says that he is not a man, but that does not mean that he could not enter human form, nor does it make it impossible for him to do so.

John 1:1 first:
>John 1:1
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
>and the Word was God.

>Malachi will no doubt try to convince you that it should
>read an the Word was a god.
Yes John 1:1 is more accurately translated:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Let me explain why...and osoclasi has mentioned that Greek grammar doesn't demand that it read "a god"...but let me tell you why it IS consistent with the rules Greek grammar. Greek scholar Philip B. Harner, in his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", said that clauses like the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos(word) has the nature of theos(God)" He goes on to say that "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'"(Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp.85,87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word "theos" in it's second occurence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, the King James version, as well as others, refers to Judas Iscariot as "a Devil", and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet". So WHY is it that at John 1:1, Greek grammar "doesn't demand" that the indefinite article "a" be used, but at John 6:70 and John 9:17 it does? I'll tell you why, IT IS A BLATANT AND OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Many Bible Scholars feel the same way. In the book "Dictionary of the Bible", John L McKenzie writes "John 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God, and the word was a divine being.'"

In harmony with the above, The American Translation reads: "the Word was divine"; Moffatt's translation reads: "the Logos was divine"; The New Testament in an Improved Version reads: "the word was a god".

(Sorry I took so long to respond, it's been mad busy here at work.)

>"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
>and the Word was a god."
>
>Let me explain why...and osoclasi has mentioned that Greek
>grammar doesn't demand that it read "a god"...but let me
>tell you why it IS consistent with the rules Greek grammar.

Response: Actually it is very consistant with Greek grammer. By the way I am going to be using the GNT ( Greek New Testament) for all of my Greek grammer.
>
>Thus, in this text, the fact that the word "theos" in it's
>second occurence is without the definite article (ho) and is
>placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is
>significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on
>rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to
>use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of
>other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun
>occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, the King James
>version, as well as others, refers to Judas Iscariot as "a
>Devil", and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet".
> So WHY is it that at John 1:1, Greek grammar "doesn't
>demand" that the indefinite article "a" be used, but at John
>6:70 and John 9:17 it does? I'll tell you why, IT IS A
>BLATANT AND OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE
>TRINITY.

Response: First of all, just because THeos is anathorous (without the article) does not mean that it must be translated as *a god*. For instance, in 2 Cor 5:19 Theos does not have the article and it is refering to the Father, notice the following...

hos hoti ***Theos*** hen en Christo kosmon katallasson eauton.

As that God was reconcilling the world to himself through Christ, now no one would translate this verse as * a god was reconcilling himself..." So this is clear that just because a word in anathorous that it has to be indefinite.

And in regards to John 6:70 the reason that the indefinite article was chosen was because of the context. We already know that there is a real satan, and as a matter of fact we know that Judas is not the real devil, so the definite article would not fit, neither would the qualitative usage because Jesus is not saying that he is the nature of the devil so the only option left is indefinite *a devil*.

Same with John 9:17 we know that there were many prophets, so to call him *the prophet* would not make sense, nor using a qualitative usage, so we use an indefinite meaning that Jesus belong to a class of prophets and is one from many.
>
>Many Bible Scholars feel the same way. In the book
>"Dictionary of the Bible", John L McKenzie writes "John 1:1
>should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God,
>and the word was a divine being.'"

Response: Well McKenzie might feel that way, but he must refute the qualative use of the noun Theos, and must ignore the imperfect use of en in John 1:1.

>Or my favorite, is that in 325 A.D. the
>catholic church along with Constantine (who was not a
>Theologian and could care less) got together and conspired
>to make God three persons. (Even though there are first and
>second century Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis who
>believed in the Deity of Christ).

just noticed this....

are you implying that the beef between Arius and Athanasius (whose creed you posted) was imaginary? Didnt Eusebius also side with Arius?

and I wonder about whether Constantine 'could care less.' Constantine considered himslef as a god-incarnate, and was a worshipper of the 'unconquered' Sun. and it was CONSTANTINE who initially sided with Athanasius. he later changed his mind, and recalled Arius from exile. But he was later reversed by the next emperor Constantius who again recalled athanius.

oddly enough the WHOLE DISCUSSION from both sides was based on neoplatonic metaphysics...

a brief timeline:

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was a theological power grab by a faction of the church. A major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved and directed the outcome. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. In 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next.

In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church.

The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up with force.

For the most part, the Trinitarian church has silenced critical thought and dealt treacherously with anyone of open mind and free thought. In the 1670's, Isaac Newton quietly studied the Trinity and came to the conclusion that the doctrine was foisted on the Church by Athanasius in order to swell the numbers and fill the coffers. He concluded Arius was right and he claimed that the Bible had prophesied the Rise of Trinitarianism("this strange religion of the west", the cult of 3 equal gods) as the abomination of desolation. -- The Rise of Science and Decline of Orthodox Christianity. A study of Kepler, Descartes and Newton. After Newton, others such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Gottfried Arnold, Goerg Walch, Giovanni

>
>just noticed this....
>
>are you implying that the beef between Arius and Athanasius
>(whose creed you posted) was imaginary? Didnt Eusebius also
>side with Arius?

Response: No, I am saying that the belief in the trinity did not start here as some imply, there were church Fathers before this council who believed in the deity of Christ. Which Eusebius? There were two of them.
>
>and I wonder about whether Constantine 'could care less.'
>Constantine considered himslef as a god-incarnate, and was a
>worshipper of the 'unconquered' Sun. and it was CONSTANTINE
>who initially sided with Athanasius. he later changed his
>mind, and recalled Arius from exile. But he was later
>reversed by the next emperor Constantius who again recalled
>athanius.

Response: What I meant is that Constantine did not care which side won, as long as he got unity.
>

>Response: No, I am saying that the belief in the trinity did
>not start here as some imply, there were church Fathers
>before this council who believed in the deity of Christ.

as there were ones who did not. but the outcome was decided and authorised by the roman and pagan emperors.

>Which Eusebius? There were two of them.

of nicodemia


>>and I wonder about whether Constantine 'could care less.'
>>Constantine considered himslef as a god-incarnate, and was a
>>worshipper of the 'unconquered' Sun. and it was CONSTANTINE
>>who initially sided with Athanasius. he later changed his
>>mind, and recalled Arius from exile. But he was later
>>reversed by the next emperor Constantius who again recalled
>>athanius.
>
>Response: What I meant is that Constantine did not care
>which side won, as long as he got unity.

didnt care? the emperor covened and oversaw the councils. he threw his support and authorty behind athanasius, then Arius, and then again Athanasius. and GAVE them legitimacy. of coruse a pagan mind and beleiver is going to be more recptive to ideas that fit their worldview. even asides from that, no one doubts that legitmay was authorised by the approval of the emperor. Christians like to say well Constantine became Christian and thus did what was in the best interest of Christianity, but he didnt become Chrisian until he was on his deathbed.

until before then Constantine was a follower of the the 'unconquered sun' (invitus Sol) the romanised version of mithra. Mithra oddly enough had his birthday on december 25th (no infulence huh?), and was the "Son" of the Sun-god and the 'saviour' of the world.

A Mithraic verse: "Be of good cheer, sacred band of Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and sufferings shall be your salvation." sounds familiar?

both the Vatican hill and tarsus (where paul was from) were central sites for mithraic rituals.

>
>of nicodemia

Response; Yeah he wanted to overthrow the council.
>>didnt care? the emperor covened and oversaw the councils. he
>threw his support and authorty behind athanasius, then
>Arius, and then again Athanasius. and GAVE them legitimacy.
>of coruse a pagan mind and beleiver is going to be more
>recptive to ideas that fit their worldview. even asides from
>that, no one doubts that legitmay was authorised by the
>approval of the emperor. Christians like to say well
>Constantine became Christian and thus did what was in the
>best interest of Christianity, but he didnt become Chrisian
>until he was on his deathbed.

Response: No I meant that he did not call the council because of his deep concearn of scripture interpretation, he called the council in order to gain peace and unity. As long as he got that he did not care.
>
>A Mithraic verse: "Be of good cheer, sacred band of
>Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and
>sufferings shall be your salvation." sounds familiar?

Response: Nope not really, the Mithra arguements are no longer used by scholars opposed to the resurrection of Christ, they have long been refuted. Hard to imagine Christians copying from Hinduism and Mithraic verses all at the same time.
>
>both the Vatican hill and tarsus (where paul was from) were
>central sites for mithraic rituals.

Response: That is fine.

I noticed that in the first post....



"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb
My PSA: "Soca muzik a run tings"

>Titus 2:13
>looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory
>of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

osoclasi is trying to argue that this proves the Trinity. This is another example of "selective translating" in an attempt to prove this shaky doctrine. A more accurate reading would be:

"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Using whatever translation of the Bible osoclasi is using, it might be construed that Jesus is both Almighty God and Savior, but the same rule of translation is not applied in translating 2 Thessalonians 1:12 or Titus 1:4. YOU CAN'T APPLY RULES OF TRANSLATING GREEK ONLY WHEN IT FITS IN "DEFENSE" OF THE TRINITY, AND NOT APPLY THEM OTHER TIMES.

That is PRECISELY why in the book "The Greek Testament", Henry Alford states: "I would submit that a rendering that CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATES God and Christ at Titus 2:13 satisfies ALL THE GRAMMATICAL REQUIREMENTS of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."

>>
>osoclasi is trying to argue that this proves the Trinity.
>This is another example of "selective translating" in an
>attempt to prove this shaky doctrine. A more accurate
>reading would be:
>
>"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation
>of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Response: Actually no, Greek does not have commas. :)
>
>Using whatever translation of the Bible osoclasi is using,

Response: I am using the GNT. (Greek New Testament) I told you that I study Greek and Hebrew.

>it might be construed that Jesus is both Almighty God and
>Savior, but the same rule of translation is not applied in
>translating 2 Thessalonians 1:12 or Titus 1:4. YOU CAN'T
>APPLY RULES OF TRANSLATING GREEK ONLY WHEN IT FITS IN
>"DEFENSE" OF THE TRINITY, AND NOT APPLY THEM OTHER TIMES.

Response: I did'nt those verses do not share the same construction as Titus 2:13. Well 2 Thess does but Titus 1:4 does not. Notice the following...

In Greek we have a rule called Grandville Sharp's rule inwhich when you see the construction article substantive kai substantive
it is refering to the same person. But the substantive cannot be impersonal, plural, or abstract. If you think I am making this up look in Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics by Daniel B Wallace.

For instance in 1 Peter we have...

ho theos kai pater tou Kuriou.

the God and Father of our Lord, now notice you have the article ho followed by the substantive Theos, the conjuction kai, then substantive Pater(Father), so God and Father is refering to the same person. Same with Titus 2:13 without commas :)

Titus 2:13
tou megalou theou kai soteros our Iesou Christou

Article: tou, substantive :theou, conjuction kai: substantive Iesou. So we Our great God and saviour Jesus Chirst is refering to the same person.

Now your verses 2 Thess 1:12 agrees with Grandville Sharp therefore Paul is saying our God and Jesus Christ are the same person. But Titus 1:4 does not...

apo Theou patros kai Christou Iesou.

Notice there is no article there, so this falls out of Grandville Sharp's rule.

>Response: Actually no, Greek does not have commas.

BUT ENGLISH DOES HAVE COMMAS!!! When you translate The Greek Scriptures into English, you do so using the English laws of grammar! Based on that comment, are you saying that EVERYWHERE THERE IS A COMMA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, the comma should be taken out because the NT was originally written in Greek? No, that would be stupid. Like I said before, SELECTIVE TRANSLATING WITH A TRINITARIAN BIAS.

>
>BUT ENGLISH DOES HAVE COMMAS!!!

Response: So, what we want is the apostles intent, not the translators.

When you translate The
>Greek Scriptures into English, you do so using the English
>laws of grammar!

Response: English grammer does not change Greek grammer, if Paul meant to say that Jesus was our great God and Savior then that is the way that it should be translated.

Based on that comment, are you saying that
>EVERYWHERE THERE IS A COMMA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, the comma
>should be taken out because the NT was originally written in
>Greek?

Response: No, I am saying don't hold your theology on something that is not in the text to begin with but inserted later.

No, that would be stupid. Like I said before,
>SELECTIVE TRANSLATING WITH A TRINITARIAN BIAS.

Response: Get real, english grammer does not override Greek grammer, that comma is there in your NWT based off of their theology not being honest with the text.

"The LORD created (Qanah/EKTISEN) me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. Proverb 8:22

as much as christians like to mistranslate that as possessed, the real translation is CREATED or FORMED, the same as in Mark 13:19

so God created himself? We know God has existed ALWAYS, without beginning and without end.

>"The LORD created (Qanah/EKTISEN) me first of all, the first
>of his works, long ago. Proverb 8:22

Response; First of all, wisdo9n in that passage is being personified, you don't personify people. Since Christ is a person, he is not being discussed in that passage, by the way wisdom in the next chapter is refered to as a woman, sort of hard to read Christ into that chapter.
>
>as much as christians like to mistranslate that as
>possessed, the real translation is CREATED or FORMED, the
>same as in Mark 13:19

Response: Qanah does mean possessed, the majority of the time, however it can also mean create, but again I have already demonstrated why that verse is not talking about Christ.
>
>so God created himself? We know God has existed ALWAYS,
>without beginning and without end.

Response: Again, Christ is uncreated.

Osoclasi,

You deny that Christ the personifier of Wisdom? Are you aware this is against all of the ANF? Consider the following:

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..."

Those are just a few of MANY. Most commentators agree that Jesus is wisdom as well. The New Jerusalem Bible explains in a footnote on Prov. 8 (p. 977e): "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."

Regards,
Tony

>Osoclasi,
>
>You deny that Christ the personifier of Wisdom? Are you
>aware this is against all of the ANF? Consider the
>following:
>
Response: Yep I don't think there is any exegetical grounds for linking Christ to wisdom in Proverbs 8, and there are a lot of areas where I disagree with some of the church fathers. I value there opinions but I do not base my own exegesis on them. Hence that is why I study the languages, so I can make my own decisions

This is interesting, because Christ seemed to identify himself as such.

Luke 11:49 On this account the wisdom of God also said, 'I will send forth to them prophets and apostles, and they will kill and persecute some of them,

Now note the following.

Matthew 23:34 For this reason, here I am sending forth to YOU prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of them YOU will kill and impale, and some of them YOU will scourge in YOUR synagogues and persecute from city to city;

The words are Christ's words, though he attributes them to Wisdom, which he himself is. Hence the Apostle Paul makes the identification as well.

1 Corinthians 1:24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

I might suggest you read C. F. Burney, "Christ as the APCH of Creation," Journal of Theological Studies 27, as it draws on the clear parallel between Prov 8:22, Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14.

Regards,
Tony

>This is interesting, because Christ seemed to identify
>himself as such.

Response: First of all before you go jumping out of context, in Proverbs wisdom is used as a guide for living a godly life style. Therefore proverbs 8 should be read in light of proverbs 1-9 since they all have the same context. For instance if Christ is wisdom who are understading and knowledge in Proverbs 3:19-20? It si obvious that wisdom is being personified here and as I stated before you do not personify people. Futhermore wisdom is also a she Proverbs 9:1 not a he.
>
>Luke 11:49 On this account the wisdom of God also said, 'I
>will send forth to them prophets and apostles, and they
>will kill and persecute some of them,
>
>Now note the following.
>
>Matthew 23:34 For this reason, here I am sending forth to
>YOU prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of
>them YOU will kill and impale, and some of them YOU will
>scourge in YOUR synagogues and persecute from city to city;
>
>The words are Christ's words, though he attributes them to
>Wisdom, which he himself is. Hence the Apostle Paul makes
>the identification as well.

Response: But you are reading the NT back into the OT, I will comment after the 1 Cor passage.
>
>1 Corinthians 1:24 however, to those who are the called,
>both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the
>wisdom of God.

Response: Calling Christ the wisdom of God is fine, however, the context of Matt,Luke and Cor is different than that of Proverbs, for one in the NT usage, Christ being called wisdom means that he is the wisdom to salvation. In Proverbs however, Wisdom is being used as wisdom to living a godly life, as noted above you have ignored the intended context in which proverbs must be read. I will be back later on I gotta run to work.
>

>>This is interesting, because Christ seemed to identify
>>himself as such.
>
>Response: First of all before you go jumping out of context,
>in Proverbs wisdom is used as a guide for living a godly
>life style. Therefore proverbs 8 should be read in light of
>proverbs 1-9 since they all have the same context. For
>instance if Christ is wisdom who are understading and
>knowledge in Proverbs 3:19-20? It si obvious that wisdom is
>being personified here and as I stated before you do not
>personify people. Futhermore wisdom is also a she Proverbs
>9:1 not a he.

Reply: Wisdom is the one identified as understanding in Prov 8:14. Knowledge is never personified, so it is not an issue. Yes, you do not peronify people, but people personify things, and Jesus is the personifier of wisdom.

Regarding Wisdom being a she, that is only because CHOKMAH is feminine in Hebrew. Is Solomon a she because he is called congregator, which is feminine in Hebrew? Or how about Naphtali who in Genesis 49:21 is called a female deer who produces fawns!? Rather, we know the one spoken of in Proverbs 8, though grammatically is feminine, has a natural masculine gender. We know this because in verse 30, the masculine AMON is used instead of the feminine AMONAH, where Wisdom is called either little child or master worker, depending on the translation (either are possible).

You write: Response: Calling Christ the wisdom of God is fine, however, the context of Matt,Luke and Cor is different than that of Proverbs, for one in the NT usage, Christ being called wisdom means that he is the wisdom to salvation. In Proverbs however, Wisdom is being used as wisdom to living a godly life, as noted above you have ignored the intended context in which proverbs must be read.

Reply: Let us see if that holds true.

The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis. 9:9)
The Word was with God (John 1:1)
Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
The Word is an agent in creation (John 1:1-3)
Wisdom is an agent in creation (Prov. 3:19, 8:25; Is. 7:21, 9:1-2)
The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir. 4:12)
Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)
Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)
Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 10:7, 11, 14)
Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-16; Sir. 24:19-22)
Christ is life (John 11:25)
Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)
Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)
Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)

The parallels between Jesus and Wisdom cannot be missed.

Regards,
Tony

>Reply: Wisdom is the one identified as understanding in
>Prov 8:14. Knowledge is never personified, so it is not an
>issue. Yes, you do not peronify people, but people
>personify things, and Jesus is the personifier of wisdom.

Response: Bad arguement you cannot just pick and chose when you want to start personifing things, if by wisdom God performed some acts and wisdom is a person, then guess what you need to explain who are knowledge and understanding. And people cannot become personifiers I think you made up something there. YOu personify inanimate objects such as rivers,rocks etc, not people. Clealy, your theology is driving you to this conclusion.
>
>Regarding Wisdom being a she, that is only because CHOKMAH
>is feminine in Hebrew. Is Solomon a she because he is
>called congregator, which is feminine in Hebrew?

Response: Ahh but here is the difference, Solomon is never refered to by a personal pronoun *she* wisdom is. Sorry.

Or how
>about Naphtali who in Genesis 49:21 is called a female deer
>who produces fawns!? Rather, we know the one spoken of in
>Proverbs 8, though grammatically is feminine, has a natural
>masculine gender. We know this because in verse 30, the
>masculine AMON is used instead of the feminine AMONAH, where
>Wisdom is called either little child or master worker,
>depending on the translation (either are possible).

Response: Titles can be feminine but Naphtali is not called her, or she or anything like wisdom is. By the way proverbs tells us that wisdom stands on the corner and shouts in the streets did Christ do this? And when it says to obtain wisdom are we to go grab Christ? and as far as it having a masculine gender does that mean now that Christ was both feminine and masculine at the same time? And are understanding and knowledge Peter and JOhn or are they Mark and Luke maybe they are Gabriel.

>Reply: Let us see if that holds true.

Response: Before I respond to the bottom, I notice that you said let's see if it holds true but did not address the context of 1 Cor, that should be how we know if it holds true, but oh well. Guess I'll do that tonight when I get my Bible.
>
>The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
>Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis.
>9:9)

Response: Actually in Proverbs it says that the wisdom was at teh beginnign of God's ways, JOhn 1:1 does not say such. By the way should'nt there at least be a quote from John 1:1 of Proverbs 8?

>The Word was with God (John 1:1)

>Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
>The Word is an agent in creation (John 1:1-3)

Response: And wisdom was also a girl standing on a street corner.

>The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
>Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir.
>4:12)

Response: Actually the Logos was the light itself and it also provided light wisdom is nto the light itself.

>Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
>Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
>The Word was in the world (John 1:10)

Response; Whatever book Wis is I probably don't hold it to be canonical, sorry. Need to stay inbounds here. ANd before you start argueing about some book being canonical let's hold it till later.


>Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)

Response: Sorry I don't know what WIS and SIR are, unless those are Hebrew titles, and i am without my BHS until I get home.

>The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
>Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
>The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
>Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)

Response: Buzz, out of scripture, unless those are Hebrew titles those are not regarded as canonical.

>Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
>Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir.
>15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)

Response: In Prov 9 Wisdom is also a girl. and SIr and wis, well ya know the rest.

>The parallels between Jesus and Wisdom cannot be missed.

Respnose: Sure there are'nt any. By the way I erased the rest because I keep having the same answers if there one you really want me to respond to put it back up. Especially when I have my Bible in front of me.

>>Reply: Wisdom is the one identified as understanding in
>>Prov 8:14. Knowledge is never personified, so it is not an
>>issue. Yes, you do not peronify people, but people
>>personify things, and Jesus is the personifier of wisdom.
>
>Response: Bad arguement you cannot just pick and chose when
>you want to start personifing things, if by wisdom God
>performed some acts and wisdom is a person, then guess what
>you need to explain who are knowledge and understanding.
>And people cannot become personifiers I think you made up
>something there. YOu personify inanimate objects such as
>rivers,rocks etc, not people. Clealy, your theology is
>driving you to this conclusion.
>>

Reply2: I'm not picking it, I'm going by whether or not scripture does it! Simply because scripture mentions something does not make it personified. People are not being personified, the attributes are being personified IN Christ.

>>Regarding Wisdom being a she, that is only because CHOKMAH
>>is feminine in Hebrew. Is Solomon a she because he is
>>called congregator, which is feminine in Hebrew?
>
>Response: Ahh but here is the difference, Solomon is never
>refered to by a personal pronoun *she* wisdom is. Sorry.

Reply2: This argument does not help your position. Grammatically, the congregator is a she. The only reason it is not rendered as such is because Solomon is indentified as such. The translators are following the GRAMMATICAL gender, because Wisdom in Hebrew is feminine. Obviously you've never studied any Hebrew.

>
> Or how
>>about Naphtali who in Genesis 49:21 is called a female deer
>>who produces fawns!? Rather, we know the one spoken of in
>>Proverbs 8, though grammatically is feminine, has a natural
>>masculine gender. We know this because in verse 30, the
>>masculine AMON is used instead of the feminine AMONAH, where
>>Wisdom is called either little child or master worker,
>>depending on the translation (either are possible).
>
>Response: Titles can be feminine but Naphtali is not called
>her, or she or anything like wisdom is. By the way proverbs
>tells us that wisdom stands on the corner and shouts in the
>streets did Christ do this? And when it says to obtain
>wisdom are we to go grab Christ? and as far as it having a
>masculine gender does that mean now that Christ was both
>feminine and masculine at the same time? And are
>understanding and knowledge Peter and JOhn or are they Mark
>and Luke maybe they are Gabriel.

Reply2: Again, you must distringuish between the attribute and the one in whom it is personified. Christ, as a spirit, does not technically have gender, if you want to be technical. CHOKMAH is a feminine noun, so grammatically it MUST be rendered in the feminine. Thus calling wisdom SHE has NO bearing on the natural gender of the person. However, using the masculine AMON was a decision, showing the NATURAL gender to be masculine, while only the grammar is feminine.

>
>>Reply: Let us see if that holds true.
>
>Response: Before I respond to the bottom, I notice that you
>said let's see if it holds true but did not address the
>context of 1 Cor, that should be how we know if it holds
>true, but oh well. Guess I'll do that tonight when I get my
>Bible.
>>
>>The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
>>Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis.
>>9:9)
>
>Response: Actually in Proverbs it says that the wisdom was
>at teh beginnign of God's ways, JOhn 1:1 does not say such.
>By the way should'nt there at least be a quote from John 1:1
>of Proverbs 8?

Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ = beginning (Rev 3:14).

>
>>The Word was with God (John 1:1)
>
>>Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
>>The Word is an agent in creation (John 1:1-3)
>
>Response: And wisdom was also a girl standing on a street
>corner.

Reply2: GRAMMATICAL gender. It is just like in Greek... Though maybe you've not really studied Greek either. I'm starting to get that impression.

>
>>The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
>>Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir.
>>4:12)
>
>Response: Actually the Logos was the light itself and it
>also provided light wisdom is nto the light itself.

Reply2: Actually, Jesus reflects God's glory (Heb 1:3) as does Wisdom (Wisdom 7:26)



>>Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
>>Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
>>The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
>
>Response; Whatever book Wis is I probably don't hold it to
>be canonical, sorry. Need to stay inbounds here. ANd
>before you start argueing about some book being canonical
>let's hold it till later.

Reply2: Why? The LOGOS was adopted by John from Philo. We are considering the Jewish mindset.

>
>
>>Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
>
>Response: Sorry I don't know what WIS and SIR are, unless
>those are Hebrew titles, and i am without my BHS until I get
>home.
>
>>The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
>>Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
>>The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
>>Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
>
>Response: Buzz, out of scripture, unless those are Hebrew
>titles those are not regarded as canonical.
>
>>Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
>>Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir.
>>15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
>
>Response: In Prov 9 Wisdom is also a girl. and SIr and wis,
>well ya know the rest.

Reply2: Is that the best you can do? Wisdom is a girl GRAMMATICALLY, that does not mean naturally. Jesus is called Wisdom in Greek, and the noun is feminine in Greek too! This means nothing, it is no basis for argument.


>
>>The parallels between Jesus and Wisdom cannot be missed.
>
>Respnose: Sure there are'nt any. By the way I erased the
>rest because I keep having the same answers if there one you
>really want me to respond to put it back up. Especially
>when I have my Bible in front of me.

Reply2: You are in denial. You dismiss points based on opinion and assumption, not on text. You make arguments that have no foundation, such as the feminine issue, ignoring the fact that to anyone who knows even a little Hebrew, this is a non-issue. The feminine/masculine thing is entirely grammatical, and it has no basis whether or not Jesus is male or female.

-Tony

>
>Reply2: I'm not picking it, I'm going by whether or not
>scripture does it! Simply because scripture mentions
>something does not make it personified. People are not
>being personified, the attributes are being personified IN
>Christ.

Response: LOL what are you talking about? Attributes are not and cannot be personified within an actual peron. You are making up stuff here. You can only personify things that are not human, i.e my heart leaped for joy. People don't personify attributes, you are making stuff up to aid your theology, nice try, it is quite inventive.
>

>
>Reply2: This argument does not help your position.
>Grammatically, the congregator is a she. The only reason it
>is not rendered as such is because Solomon is indentified as
>such. The translators are following the GRAMMATICAL gender,
>because Wisdom in Hebrew is feminine. Obviously you've
>never studied any Hebrew.

Response: Are you refering to the qoholet? If you are that word is masculine not feminine.

Daber qoholet ben d'vid malek b'yerushalem
>
>
>Reply2: Again, you must distringuish between the attribute
>and the one in whom it is personified.

Response: That is because you are making this up people don't personify attributes. lol

Christ, as a spirit,
>does not technically have gender, if you want to be
>technical. CHOKMAH is a feminine noun, so grammatically it
>MUST be rendered in the feminine. Thus calling wisdom SHE
>has NO bearing on the natural gender of the person.

Response: Ever heard of an antecedent? It is the same gender and person as the word it modifies and it does reflect gender.


>However, using the masculine AMON was a decision, showing
>the NATURAL gender to be masculine, while only the grammar
>is feminine.

Response: But that could easily be translated as I was as an architech by his side. So Amon does not all of a sudden change the gender.

>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>= beginning (Rev 3:14).

REsponse: Hmm, still no exegesis of Corithians, and Rev 3:14 does not have to be translated as beginnning, originator or ruler fits as well. Since that is where we get the word archbishop= high ruler, monarch=sole ruler etc.
>>Reply2: GRAMMATICAL gender. It is just like in Greek...
>Though maybe you've not really studied Greek either. I'm
>starting to get that impression.

REsponse: Oh I am better than you think, I am just not agreeing with you here, seems to me like you are letting your theology guide your translation.
>

>
>Reply2: Why? The LOGOS was adopted by John from Philo. We
>are considering the Jewish mindset.

Response: But John does not use Logos the same as Philo. SO we needs John mindset.
>Reply2: Is that the best you can do? Wisdom is a girl
>GRAMMATICALLY, that does not mean naturally. Jesus is
>called Wisdom in Greek, and the noun is feminine in Greek
>too! This means nothing, it is no basis for argument.

Response: Actually that could be taken as a descriptive geninative in Greek so he is being desribed as something, not making him literally feminine.

>
>Reply2: You are in denial.

Response: Well at least I am not making up people personifying attributes that is hilarious.

>>
>>Reply2: I'm not picking it, I'm going by whether or not
>>scripture does it! Simply because scripture mentions
>>something does not make it personified. People are not
>>being personified, the attributes are being personified IN
>>Christ.
>
>Response: LOL what are you talking about? Attributes are not
>and cannot be personified within an actual peron. You are
>making up stuff here. You can only personify things that
>are not human, i.e my heart leaped for joy. People don't
>personify attributes, you are making stuff up to aid your
>theology, nice try, it is quite inventive.

Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the abstraction is represented.


>>
>
>>
>>Reply2: This argument does not help your position.
>>Grammatically, the congregator is a she. The only reason it
>>is not rendered as such is because Solomon is indentified as
>>such. The translators are following the GRAMMATICAL gender,
>>because Wisdom in Hebrew is feminine. Obviously you've
>>never studied any Hebrew.
>
>Response: Are you refering to the qoholet? If you are that
>word is masculine not feminine.
>
>Daber qoholet ben d'vid malek b'yerushalem
>>

Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal *****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm. §94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly, speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128; for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W. Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of Aramaic al'h]q'. †



>>
>>Reply2: Again, you must distringuish between the attribute
>>and the one in whom it is personified.
>
>Response: That is because you are making this up people
>don't personify attributes. lol

Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.

>
>Christ, as a spirit,
>>does not technically have gender, if you want to be
>>technical. CHOKMAH is a feminine noun, so grammatically it
>>MUST be rendered in the feminine. Thus calling wisdom SHE
>>has NO bearing on the natural gender of the person.
>
>Response: Ever heard of an antecedent? It is the same
>gender and person as the word it modifies and it does
>reflect gender.

Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.

>
>
>>However, using the masculine AMON was a decision, showing
>>the NATURAL gender to be masculine, while only the grammar
>>is feminine.
>
>Response: But that could easily be translated as I was as an
>architech by his side. So Amon does not all of a sudden
>change the gender.
>
>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>
>REsponse: Hmm, still no exegesis of Corithians, and Rev 3:14
>does not have to be translated as beginnning, originator or
>ruler fits as well. Since that is where we get the word
>archbishop= high ruler, monarch=sole ruler etc.
>>>Reply2: GRAMMATICAL gender. It is just like in Greek...
>>Though maybe you've not really studied Greek either. I'm
>>starting to get that impression.

Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG). ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler, that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.

>
>REsponse: Oh I am better than you think, I am just not
>agreeing with you here, seems to me like you are letting
>your theology guide your translation.
>>
>
>>
>>Reply2: Why? The LOGOS was adopted by John from Philo. We
>>are considering the Jewish mindset.
>
>Response: But John does not use Logos the same as Philo. SO
>we needs John mindset.

Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be John's basis for the use.

>>Reply2: Is that the best you can do? Wisdom is a girl
>>GRAMMATICALLY, that does not mean naturally. Jesus is
>>called Wisdom in Greek, and the noun is feminine in Greek
>>too! This means nothing, it is no basis for argument.
>
>Response: Actually that could be taken as a descriptive
>geninative in Greek so he is being desribed as something,
>not making him literally feminine.

Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine, however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate it with feminine pronouns.

>
>>
>>Reply2: You are in denial.
>
>Response: Well at least I am not making up people
>personifying attributes that is hilarious.
>
>

Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did). Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in the future.

To think of or represent (an inanimate object or abstraction) as having personality or the qualities, thoughts, or movements of a living: “To make history or psychology alive I personify it” (Anaïs Nin).
To represent (an object or abstraction) by a human figure.
To represent (an abstract quality or idea): This character personifies evil.
To be the embodiment or perfect example of: “Stalin now personified bolshevism in the eyes of the world” (A.J.P. Taylor).


Regards,
Tony

>Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to
>personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under
>personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a
>human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the
>abstraction is represented.

Response: I see you did not put down the first defintion there, smooth. But that would make your arguement backwards now, because you mean to say that Christ is being represented in Prov 8 by wisdom not vice verse. So that defintion does not apply here by the way you never did tell me who understanding and knowledge were.
>>>>
>Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice
>what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal
>*****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm.
>§94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus
>paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly,
>speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128;
>for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard
>L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W.
>Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the
>fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of
>Aramaic al'h]q'. †

REsponse: That is weird that is the first time I ever seen HALOT disagree with my software, but it still is no problem for these reasons.

1. The context tells us that the teacher is the son of David not daughter or david, wisdom in PRoverbs 8 has no such context.

2.It is known that when feminine forms are used for male referents as in arabic, ethopic and aramaic it denotes a professional title or vocational office. Such as the word scribe. So again this is not a problem.

>
>Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.

Response; Might want to rethink that one.
>>Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the
>context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.

Response: The person is identified as a male however, ya know the part that calls him the son of david.

>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).

Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math here.
>Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable
>translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG).
>ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as
>such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler,
>that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.

Response: Hmm on page 138 of BDAG it says "the first cause, the beginning, it says your view is probable however. Although I think that arche normally means ruler since that is where we get monarch and archbishop or arch angel from and scripture speaks of rulers as arche as well.
>Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be
>John's basis for the use.

Response: Sure although someone on this site showed me something from hinduism that looks interesting it is up above in this post one of the first post.
>
>Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine,
>however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him
>the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate
>it with feminine pronouns.

Response: Sure, but that does not happen here in the Bible. The subject is always identified or context tells whether the person being discussed is male or female.
>Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before
>you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did).
>Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in
>the future.

Response: Oh good hte complete entry, I was wondering, but I answered this already.

>>Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to
>>personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under
>>personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a
>>human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the
>>abstraction is represented.
>
>Response: I see you did not put down the first defintion
>there, smooth. But that would make your arguement backwards
>now, because you mean to say that Christ is being
>represented in Prov 8 by wisdom not vice verse. So that
>defintion does not apply here by the way you never did tell
>me who understanding and knowledge were.

Reply4: I put the applicable entry. I don't mean to say Christ is being represented by Wisdom, I mean to say EXACTLY what I said. Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, when when Wisdom is personified in Proverbs at, as the personifier of it, it is Christ. As for understanding, as I pointed out, Prov 8:14 identifies this to be the same as who Wisdom is. For knowledge, please show me where knowledge is personified. If it is not personified, how is there a person who is the personifier? There can't be!


>>>>>
>>Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice
>>what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal
>>*****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm.
>>§94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus
>>paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly,
>>speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128;
>>for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard
>>L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W.
>>Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the
>>fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of
>>Aramaic al'h]q'. †
>
>REsponse: That is weird that is the first time I ever seen
>HALOT disagree with my software, but it still is no problem
>for these reasons.
>
>1. The context tells us that the teacher is the son of David
>not daughter or david, wisdom in PRoverbs 8 has no such
>context.
>
>2.It is known that when feminine forms are used for male
>referents as in arabic, ethopic and aramaic it denotes a
>professional title or vocational office. Such as the word
>scribe. So again this is not a problem.
>

Reply4: It is not supposed to be a "problem" but it demonstrates that the grammatical gender can be feminine (ala Prov 8) but the natural gender is masculine (as the use of AMON in prov 8:30 demonstrates).

>>
>>Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.
>
>Response; Might want to rethink that one.
>>>Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the
>>context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.
>
>Response: The person is identified as a male however, ya
>know the part that calls him the son of david.
>

Reply4: And in Prov 8 Wisdom is called AMON, not AMONAH.

>>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>
>Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math
>here.
>>Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable
>>translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG).
>>ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as
>>such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler,
>>that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.
>
>Response: Hmm on page 138 of BDAG it says "the first cause,
>the beginning, it says your view is probable however.
>Although I think that arche normally means ruler since that
>is where we get monarch and archbishop or arch angel from
>and scripture speaks of rulers as arche as well.

Reply4: I've actually studied every use of ARCH in both the LXX and GNT, and when used as at Rev 3:14, it is almost unquestionably used with a first in time meaning.

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first of his children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs the birthright.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among the months of the year.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

I could keep going but I'll stop.

>>Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be
>>John's basis for the use.
>
>Response: Sure although someone on this site showed me
>something from hinduism that looks interesting it is up
>above in this post one of the first post.
>>
>>Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine,
>>however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him
>>the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate
>>it with feminine pronouns.
>
>Response: Sure, but that does not happen here in the Bible.
>The subject is always identified or context tells whether
>the person being discussed is male or female.

Reply4: And Prov 8:30's use of AMON tells us that the natural gender is actually male!

>>Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before
>>you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did).
>>Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in
>>the future.
>
>Response: Oh good hte complete entry, I was wondering, but I
>answered this already.

Reply: Of course your answer was based on a strawman. Try actually replying to my position and not building a misrepresented position!

-Tony

>Reply4: I put the applicable entry. I don't mean to say
>Christ is being represented by Wisdom, I mean to say EXACTLY
>what I said.

Response: Now you switched who is representing who now in Proverbs 8. Looks to me that wisdom is being personified not Christ.

Christ is the personifier of Wisdom,

Response: How do you gather that from proverbs 8? Christ is not even mentioned in the passage.

when when
>Wisdom is personified in Proverbs at, as the personifier of
>it, it is Christ.

Response: So how can wisdom be the representer of CHrist and Christ be the personifier of wisdom all at the same time? And how do you gather that from proverbs 8?

As for understanding, as I pointed out,
>Prov 8:14 identifies this to be the same as who Wisdom is.
>For knowledge, please show me where knowledge is
>personified. If it is not personified, how is there a
>person who is the personifier? There can't be!

Response: They are all used by God in the same context of creation it would be strang that one is a person and the others are not.

>Reply4: It is not supposed to be a "problem" but it
>demonstrates that the grammatical gender can be feminine
>(ala Prov 8) but the natural gender is masculine (as the use
>of AMON in prov 8:30 demonstrates).

Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.

>Reply4: And in Prov 8 Wisdom is called AMON, not AMONAH.

Response: Actually she is like an architech.
>
>>>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>>
>>Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math
>>here.
>Reply4: I've actually studied every use of ARCH in both the
>LXX and GNT, and when used as at Rev 3:14, it is almost
>unquestionably used with a first in time meaning.

Response: But you are ignoring the fact that it also means ruler as in eph 5.
>>Reply4: And Prov 8:30's use of AMON tells us that the
>natural gender is actually male!

Response: NOt if she is being compared.
>
I am in a rush right now and not at home i will try to respond to the rest later.

>>Reply4: I put the applicable entry. I don't mean to say
>>Christ is being represented by Wisdom, I mean to say EXACTLY
>>what I said.
>
>Response: Now you switched who is representing who now in
>Proverbs 8. Looks to me that wisdom is being personified
>not Christ.
>
>Christ is the personifier of Wisdom,
>
>Response: How do you gather that from proverbs 8? Christ is
>not even mentioned in the passage.

Reply5: The same way the early church writers and protestant commentators did probably! The parallels between Christ and wisdom, the fact that he is identified as Wisdom in the NT.

>
> when when
>>Wisdom is personified in Proverbs at, as the personifier of
>>it, it is Christ.
>
>Response: So how can wisdom be the representer of CHrist and
>Christ be the personifier of wisdom all at the same time?
>And how do you gather that from proverbs 8?

Reply5: Christ is the one that personifies Wisdom. So when wisdom is personified, Christ is the one doing it, as he did in the parallel accounts I showed you.

>
> As for understanding, as I pointed out,
>>Prov 8:14 identifies this to be the same as who Wisdom is.
>>For knowledge, please show me where knowledge is
>>personified. If it is not personified, how is there a
>>person who is the personifier? There can't be!
>
>Response: They are all used by God in the same context of
>creation it would be strang that one is a person and the
>others are not.

Reply5: Wisdom is not a person in itself, but the attribute is personified by a person. I am not aware of knowledge being personified anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to such a place.

>
>>Reply4: It is not supposed to be a "problem" but it
>>demonstrates that the grammatical gender can be feminine
>>(ala Prov 8) but the natural gender is masculine (as the use
>>of AMON in prov 8:30 demonstrates).
>
>Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.

Reply5: Wisdom is called such in verse 30, with the masculine AMON. Are you disputing this???

>
>>Reply4: And in Prov 8 Wisdom is called AMON, not AMONAH.
>
>Response: Actually she is like an architech.

Reply5: Again, do you deny that Solomon used the masculine instead of the feminine?

>>
>>>>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>>>
>>>Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math
>>>here.

Reply5: As I highlighted in the other thread, it does not mean originator.

>>Reply4: I've actually studied every use of ARCH in both the
>>LXX and GNT, and when used as at Rev 3:14, it is almost
>>unquestionably used with a first in time meaning.
>
>Response: But you are ignoring the fact that it also means
>ruler as in eph 5.

Reply5: ARCH does not even appear in Eph 5. Perhaps you mean the PLURAL in verse 6. The plural is used for ruler, but this is uncommon for the singular. Rather, in cases of the singular, ARCWN is used.

>>>Reply4: And Prov 8:30's use of AMON tells us that the
>>natural gender is actually male!
>
>Response: NOt if she is being compared.

Reply5: I see no comparison taking place.

>>
>I am in a rush right now and not at home i will try to
>respond to the rest later.


Very well,
Tony

>
>Reply5: The same way the early church writers and
>protestant commentators did probably! The parallels between
>Christ and wisdom, the fact that he is identified as Wisdom
>in the NT.

Response: Well alot of the church fathers were into allegorical interpretain so it is obvious how they got it, but unless that your method that is not a good answer. Especially since you cannot personify persons. There are parallels and they are differences as well, and the context inwhich is called wisdom in the NT. i.e. wisdom unto salvation is different than Solomon's use of wisdom to living a Godly life.

>Reply5: Christ is the one that personifies Wisdom. So when
>wisdom is personified, Christ is the one doing it, as he did
>in the parallel accounts I showed you.

Response: Where on earth to do you see Christ personifying wisdom in Proverbs 8? you are forcing a interpretion on the text. No where in that passage do we see any one person personifying wisdom other than Solomon as he does with his poetry the entire book.
>
>
>Reply5: Wisdom is not a person in itself, but the attribute
>is personified by a person. I am not aware of knowledge
>being personified anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to
>such a place.

Response: Well it is only consistant that if one of the attributes used in that passage is a person or is being personified in the NT that the other two should be as well.
>>Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.
>
>Reply5: Wisdom is called such in verse 30, with the
>masculine AMON. Are you disputing this???

Response: No I am saying that wisdom is a personal name and architech is a title describing what type of work wisdom is doing. So wisdom she is being described as an architech.
>Reply5: As I highlighted in the other thread, it does not
>mean originator.

Response: that was a good point, there, although I still think ruler is better.
>>Reply5: ARCH does not even appear in Eph 5. Perhaps you
>mean the PLURAL in verse 6. The plural is used for ruler,
>but this is uncommon for the singular. Rather, in cases of
>the singular, ARCWN is used.

Response: Sorry bout that I did not have a bible at work, but teh plural does not change the meaning of the word, futhermore as I have said arch is the root that naturally means ruler. Monarch, arch angel etc.

>Reply5: I see no comparison taking place.

Respnse: Architech is not her name it is describing what she does.

>>
>>Reply5: The same way the early church writers and
>>protestant commentators did probably! The parallels between
>>Christ and wisdom, the fact that he is identified as Wisdom
>>in the NT.
>
>Response: Well alot of the church fathers were into
>allegorical interpretain so it is obvious how they got it,
>but unless that your method that is not a good answer.
>Especially since you cannot personify persons. There are
>parallels and they are differences as well, and the context
>inwhich is called wisdom in the NT. i.e. wisdom unto
>salvation is different than Solomon's use of wisdom to
>living a Godly life.

Reply6: First of all, NOBODY IS PERSONIFYING A PERSON! Come on sheesh. Stop building straw man arguments! You keep claiming a contextual different, but you've thus far failed to demonstrate such. Try DEMONSTRATING THE DIFFERENCE. Christ is called the Wisdom of God. Not the Wisdom regarding salvation from God. Your position completely fails.


>
>>Reply5: Christ is the one that personifies Wisdom. So when
>>wisdom is personified, Christ is the one doing it, as he did
>>in the parallel accounts I showed you.
>
>Response: Where on earth to do you see Christ personifying
>wisdom in Proverbs 8? you are forcing a interpretion on the
>text. No where in that passage do we see any one person
>personifying wisdom other than Solomon as he does with his
>poetry the entire book.
>>

Reply6: I am actually following Christ, who referenced himself as Wisdom speaking (we noted the parallel passages) and Paul who called Christ God's Wisdom. Understanding this, as the ANF did, we make the connection... also the attribute of Wisdom is never created, Prov 8:22 has personified Wisdom created first, ala Rev 3:14.


>>
>>Reply5: Wisdom is not a person in itself, but the attribute
>>is personified by a person. I am not aware of knowledge
>>being personified anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to
>>such a place.
>
>Response: Well it is only consistant that if one of the
>attributes used in that passage is a person or is being
>personified in the NT that the other two should be as well.
>>>Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.

Reply6: The attribute is personified BEFORE we claim a person is the personifier. Unless there is a personfication, there can be no personifier. It helps a lot to use basic logic instead of arguing just to argue.

>>
>>Reply5: Wisdom is called such in verse 30, with the
>>masculine AMON. Are you disputing this???
>
>Response: No I am saying that wisdom is a personal name and
>architech is a title describing what type of work wisdom is
>doing. So wisdom she is being described as an architech.

Reply6: And Wisdom is done so using the MASCULINE, not the FEMININE. Why did Solomon use AMON instead of AMONAH, if the NATURAL gender is not masculine?


>>Reply5: As I highlighted in the other thread, it does not
>>mean originator.
>
>Response: that was a good point, there, although I still
>think ruler is better.

Reply6: Again, empty opinion. I've provided evidence for my position, but theologically, you MUST not accept it, even though it stands totally in the face of your position.

>>>Reply5: ARCH does not even appear in Eph 5. Perhaps you
>>mean the PLURAL in verse 6. The plural is used for ruler,
>>but this is uncommon for the singular. Rather, in cases of
>>the singular, ARCWN is used.
>
>Response: Sorry bout that I did not have a bible at work,
>but teh plural does not change the meaning of the word,
>futhermore as I have said arch is the root that naturally
>means ruler. Monarch, arch angel etc.

Reply: Actually, it does not. It means first, in time or priority. To be a ruler, the term typically used is ARCWN. Here are some examples:

Genesis 34:2 And Sychem the son of Emmor the Evite, the ruler of the land (O ARCWN THS GHS), saw her, and took her and lay with her, and humbled her.

Genesis 45:8 Now then ye did not send me hither, but God; and he hath made me as a father of Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and ruler of all the land of Egypt (ARCONTA PASHS GHS ALGUPTOU).

Judges 9:30 And Zebul the ruler of the city (ARCWN THS POLEWS) heard the words of Gaal the son of Jobel, and he was very angry.

Micah 5:2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel (ARCONTA EN TW ISRAHL); and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.

Others can be found at the following places: Mathew 9:18, 23. 34; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 8:41; 11:15; 12:58; 18:18; John 3:1; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Acts 7:27, 35; 23:5; Eph 2:2. There are many more, but that is sufficient. ARCH is used most often for first in time references, especially when used with a genitive of a person:

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first of his children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs the birthright.

As with Genesis 49:3, ARCH here is synonymous with PRWTOTOKOS.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

This verse is of personified Wisdom, Jesus (1 Cor. 1:24). He is identified as the beginning of God's ways, a clear use of ARCH as beginning, but also an obvious parallel to Revelation 3:14 (for more on this, see C. F. Burney, "Christ as the APCH of Creation," Journal of Theological Studies 27).

Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

A clear use of ARCH denoting a beginning in time. These are the first cities that were within his kingdom.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among the months of the year.

ARCH is here used to identify what month would be considered the first month.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

These identify an event that occurs at the same time as a harvest begins.

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
(ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

These verses explain that we first have wisdom when we begin to fear the Lord.

Psalm 137:6 May my tongue cleave to my throat, if I do not remember thee; if I do not prefer Jerusalem as the chief of my joy (EN ARCH THS EUFROSUNHS MOU).

Not chief as in ruler or authority, but as in the primary one. Jerusalem is what brings Jehovah the most joy, it is first in rank of his joys.

Job 40:19 This is the first of the formation of the Lord (TOUT ESTIN ARCH PLASMATOS KURIOU); made to be played with by his angels.

Wisdom 12:16 For your power is the beginning of righteousness (H GAR ISCUS DIKAIOSUNHS ARCH)...
Jeremiah 49:35 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.

Chief here is clearly not denoting the ruler, but the primary aspect of their might, the foremost aspect of their strength. Albert Barnes expands on this, saying: "The bow was the national weapon of Elam, and therefore the “chief of their might,” that on which their strength in war depended."

Matthew 24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (PANTA DE TOUTA ARCH WDINWN).

Mark 13:8 "For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (ARCH WDINWN TOUTA).

Again we find that these things are the ARCH of the birth pangs, the beginning or first of them.



>
>>Reply5: I see no comparison taking place.
>
>Respnse: Architech is not her name it is describing what she
>does.

Reply6: Yes, it does, but it is the masculine AMON instead of the feminine AMONAH. Why is this if Wisdom's NATURAL gender is not masculine?

Regards.
Tony

>Reply6: First of all, NOBODY IS PERSONIFYING A PERSON!
>Come on sheesh.

Response: Good so we agree that wisdom is nor personifying Christ a person, good, took a while to convince you.

Stop building straw man arguments! You
>keep claiming a contextual different, but you've thus far
>failed to demonstrate such. Try DEMONSTRATING THE
>DIFFERENCE. Christ is called the Wisdom of God. Not the
>Wisdom regarding salvation from God. Your position
>completely fails.

Response: You ignore the context of 1 Cor 1:26-31, lets look shall we. THe difference is that Christ is the wisdom unto salvation while Proverbs uses wisdom to living a godly life.

v26 "for considering your calling brethern..."

So we see here that Paul is discussing their calling meaning their salvation. No illusion to Proverbs at all.

vs 27 But God has chosen the foolish things in the world to shame the wise...

Here again Paul still discussing salvation, not proverbs 8.

vs 28. And these things the world has despised....

vs29. so that no man can boast before God...

Boast of what? Their salvation,therefore v 30 Christ is the wisdom of GOd in righteouness, santification etc.

THere is the difference TOny simply context.
>>Reply6: I am actually following Christ, who referenced
>himself as Wisdom speaking (we noted the parallel passages)
>and Paul who called Christ God's Wisdom.

Response: I ask about Proverbs 8 and you jump to the NT, tss, tss. Christ did not even mention proverbs 8, and I have illustrated already what Paul meant when calling Christ wisdom vs what SOlomon was doing, and the parallel passages were between luke and matthew not proverbs. Now show me from the text of proverbs that Christ is personifying it.

Understanding
>this, as the ANF did, we make the connection... also the
>attribute of Wisdom is never created, Prov 8:22 has
>personified Wisdom created first, ala Rev 3:14.

Response:ANF also believe in baptism unto salvation and used allegorical method. If the attribute wisdom is Christ is never created then that would make him God. ANd Rev 3:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Proverbs 8, besides being forced into it by you.
>
>Reply6: The attribute is personified BEFORE we claim a
>person is the personifier. Unless there is a
>personfication, there can be no personifier. It helps a lot
>to use basic logic instead of arguing just to argue.

Response: And it also helps to be consistant, if God by his wisdom did something and wisdom is a person, then understanding and knowledge should be persons as well.
>>Reply6: And Wisdom is done so using the MASCULINE, not the
>FEMININE. Why did Solomon use AMON instead of AMONAH, if
>the NATURAL gender is not masculine?

Response: Because titles don't matter when applying it to a type of work or job she is doing. SHe is as an architect, the whether the title of the job is feminine or masculine does not matter.
>
>Reply6: Again, empty opinion. I've provided evidence for
>my position, but theologically, you MUST not accept it, even
>though it stands totally in the face of your position.

Response:Well I have lexical support as well, so it is not an empty opinion.

arche p138 of BADG says " an authority figure who iniates activity or process, ruler, authority.
>Reply: Actually, it does not. It means first, in time or
>priority. To be a ruler, the term typically used is ARCWN.
>Here are some examples:

Response: Here is some other examples.

LUke 12:11 the synagouges and the rulers and the authorities...

kai tas arkas tas ezousias...

Titus 3:1, Romans 8:38,1 Cor 15:24,Eph 1:21,3:10;6:12, Col 1:16;2:10,15. So I have plenty of support.
>
>>Reply6: Yes, it does, but it is the masculine AMON instead
>of the feminine AMONAH. Why is this if Wisdom's NATURAL
>gender is not masculine?

Response: Becuase in relation to job titles or descriptoins of vocation it does not matter, especially since Wisdom is called a she throughout all 9 chapters,unless you want to argue for a sex change or soemthing.
>
>Regards.
>Tony

>>Reply6: First of all, NOBODY IS PERSONIFYING A PERSON!
>>Come on sheesh.
>
>Response: Good so we agree that wisdom is nor personifying
>Christ a person, good, took a while to convince you.

Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I did to somehow claim victory. Try again.

>
> Stop building straw man arguments! You
>>keep claiming a contextual different, but you've thus far
>>failed to demonstrate such. Try DEMONSTRATING THE
>>DIFFERENCE. Christ is called the Wisdom of God. Not the
>>Wisdom regarding salvation from God. Your position
>>completely fails.
>
>Response: You ignore the context of 1 Cor 1:26-31, lets look
>shall we. THe difference is that Christ is the wisdom unto
>salvation while Proverbs uses wisdom to living a godly life.
>
>v26 "for considering your calling brethern..."
>
>So we see here that Paul is discussing their calling meaning
>their salvation. No illusion to Proverbs at all.
>
>vs 27 But God has chosen the foolish things in the world to
>shame the wise...
>
>Here again Paul still discussing salvation, not proverbs 8.
>
>vs 28. And these things the world has despised....
>
>vs29. so that no man can boast before God...
>
>Boast of what? Their salvation,therefore v 30 Christ is the
>wisdom of GOd in righteouness, santification etc.
>
>THere is the difference TOny simply context.

Reply7: Another strawman. I'm not even talking about those verse, I'm talking about verse 24!


>>>Reply6: I am actually following Christ, who referenced
>>himself as Wisdom speaking (we noted the parallel passages)
>>and Paul who called Christ God's Wisdom.
>
>Response: I ask about Proverbs 8 and you jump to the NT,
>tss, tss. Christ did not even mention proverbs 8, and I
>have illustrated already what Paul meant when calling Christ
>wisdom vs what SOlomon was doing, and the parallel passages
>were between luke and matthew not proverbs. Now show me
>from the text of proverbs that Christ is personifying it.

Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom. Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it is personified.


>
> Understanding
>>this, as the ANF did, we make the connection... also the
>>attribute of Wisdom is never created, Prov 8:22 has
>>personified Wisdom created first, ala Rev 3:14.
>
>Response:ANF also believe in baptism unto salvation and used
>allegorical method. If the attribute wisdom is Christ is
>never created then that would make him God. ANd Rev 3:14
>has absolutely nothing to do with Proverbs 8, besides being
>forced into it by you.

Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also believed that...." Lets not whine please. Wisdom is plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the connection.


>>
>>Reply6: The attribute is personified BEFORE we claim a
>>person is the personifier. Unless there is a
>>personfication, there can be no personifier. It helps a lot
>>to use basic logic instead of arguing just to argue.
>
>Response: And it also helps to be consistant, if God by his
>wisdom did something and wisdom is a person, then
>understanding and knowledge should be persons as well.

Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, according to Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of Understanding.


>>>Reply6: And Wisdom is done so using the MASCULINE, not the
>>FEMININE. Why did Solomon use AMON instead of AMONAH, if
>>the NATURAL gender is not masculine?
>
>Response: Because titles don't matter when applying it to a
>type of work or job she is doing. SHe is as an architect,
>the whether the title of the job is feminine or masculine
>does not matter.

Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you still aren't dealing with the issues.


>>
>>Reply6: Again, empty opinion. I've provided evidence for
>>my position, but theologically, you MUST not accept it, even
>>though it stands totally in the face of your position.
>
>Response:Well I have lexical support as well, so it is not
>an empty opinion.
>
>arche p138 of BADG says " an authority figure who iniates
>activity or process, ruler, authority.

Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv 3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing the translations we could come up with if we went around and just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.

Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers to positions of authority, and when that happens, it typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to specific authority, but authorities in general. I have demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid, unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter for it.

>>Reply: Actually, it does not. It means first, in time or
>>priority. To be a ruler, the term typically used is ARCWN.
>>Here are some examples:
>
>Response: Here is some other examples.
>
>LUke 12:11 the synagouges and the rulers and the
>authorities...
>
>kai tas arkas tas ezousias...
>
>Titus 3:1, Romans 8:38,1 Cor 15:24,Eph 1:21,3:10;6:12, Col
>1:16;2:10,15. So I have plenty of support.

Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14. Again, there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev 3:14 here.. You are using a lexical entry that disagrees with your position, because it flat out states that "first-created" is the "linguistically probable" translation. Even if all of your entries were valid comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very small when compared to mine.


>>
>>>Reply6: Yes, it does, but it is the masculine AMON instead
>>of the feminine AMONAH. Why is this if Wisdom's NATURAL
>>gender is not masculine?
>
>Response: Becuase in relation to job titles or descriptoins
>of vocation it does not matter, especially since Wisdom is
>called a she throughout all 9 chapters,unless you want to
>argue for a sex change or soemthing.

Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.


>>
>>Regards.
>>Tony


Keep trying,
Tony

>Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to
>begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I
>did to somehow claim victory. Try again.

Response: Then if Wisdom is not personifying Christ then it has nothign to do with Christ. Good glad we agree again. See with a little work I knew I could convince you.
>Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this
>and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom.
>Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he
>is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so
>the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it
>is personified.

Response: WAY TO DUCK EXEGESIS!! Man, you might want to try boxing or something. Every heard of genre?? Wisdom in poetry is different than wisdom within an epistle.

For example if I write a love letter to my wife and tell her I love here, would be different than writting a business letter where I tell someone I would love to meet them. You have no interestin in exegesis.
>
>>Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also
>believed that...." Lets not whine please.

Response: How am I running when you brought them up, just because the ANF believed something does not mean that one is obligated to agree with them.

Wisdom is
>plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for
>connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in
>his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the
>connection.

Response: Glad you said that, because you listed all of the choices earlier for arche meaning first created or something, and noted below in this post that you had the majority of definitoins, true. However, the word qanah (the Hebrew not Greek) is more likely possesed or aquired as you know, very rarely is it used as create.

84 times it occurs in the Old Testament, 70 times as ktaomai and only 3 as ktizo.

So the majority of appearances of a word does not negate that it can mean something besides it normal appearance, therefore even though you have more appearances of arche more than I do , does not mean anything, unless you want to agree with me that qanah should be translated as possessed as opposed to created.

>
>Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've
>said it before, and I'll say it again, according to
>Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of
>Understanding.

Response: So where is wisdom dwelling with prudence at? And where did he find knowlegde and descretion, ya know they were hiding out somewhere. By the way if Jesus wisdom and understading who is this knowledge charecter?

Futhremore you never did tell me which street corner that was Jesus was shouting (prov 1:20) just curious to its location.
>
>Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did
>Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you
>still aren't dealing with the issues.


Response: Because he *personifying* wisdom that is why. He is applying human charecteristics to an abstraction. It is beyond grammer.
>Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv
>3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want
>to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing
>the translations we could come up with if we went around and
>just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.


Response: Well if I used yours in BDAG I could keep oringinator, since it says "the first cause..."

Cool I can keep originator, thanks.
>
>Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for
>the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers
>to positions of authority, and when that happens, it
>typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to
>specific authority, but authorities in general. I have
>demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid,
>unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter
>for it.

Response: The plural form is no different than the singular, all it means is that there is more than one. Again arche means ruler, how else do we get monarch, archangel etc. it had to come from somewhere. I think you are winging it now.
>

>
>Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are
>not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14.

Response: Homemade greek grammer, plural makes no difference.

Again,
>there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev
>3:14 here..

Resp0onse: Then originator fits, if that is the case.

You are using a lexical entry that disagrees
>with your position, because it flat out states that
>"first-created" is the "linguistically probable"
>translation. Even if all of your entries were valid
>comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very
>small when compared to mine.

REsponse: And so is originator according to BDAG, and size means nothing unless you want to agree that qanah means acquired or possessed in Prov 8.
>
>>Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural
>gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the
>masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts
>your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for
>it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.


Response: Wisdom as a female counts for genre, since he is personifying it. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
>

>>Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to
>>begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I
>>did to somehow claim victory. Try again.
>
>Response: Then if Wisdom is not personifying Christ then it
>has nothign to do with Christ. Good glad we agree again.
>See with a little work I knew I could convince you.
>>Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this
>>and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom.
>>Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he
>>is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so
>>the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it
>>is personified.
>
>Response: WAY TO DUCK EXEGESIS!! Man, you might want to try
>boxing or something. Every heard of genre?? Wisdom in
>poetry is different than wisdom within an epistle.


Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I accept it. You obviously don't.


>
>For example if I write a love letter to my wife and tell her
>I love here, would be different than writting a business
>letter where I tell someone I would love to meet them. You
>have no interestin in exegesis.
>>
>>>Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also
>>believed that...." Lets not whine please.
>
>Response: How am I running when you brought them up, just
>because the ANF believed something does not mean that one is
>obligated to agree with them.

Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this, no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points. That really is the significant part here too. While they disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I can't think of a single time it was!

>
> Wisdom is
>>plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for
>>connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in
>>his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the
>>connection.
>
>Response: Glad you said that, because you listed all of the
>choices earlier for arche meaning first created or
>something, and noted below in this post that you had the
>majority of definitoins, true. However, the word qanah (the
>Hebrew not Greek) is more likely possesed or aquired as you
>know, very rarely is it used as create.

Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.

>
>84 times it occurs in the Old Testament, 70 times as ktaomai
>and only 3 as ktizo.
>
>So the majority of appearances of a word does not negate
>that it can mean something besides it normal appearance,
>therefore even though you have more appearances of arche
>more than I do , does not mean anything, unless you want to
>agree with me that qanah should be translated as possessed
>as opposed to created.

Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the source of all things. Word usage is not simply the appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the type of construction it is used in).


>
>>
>>Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've
>>said it before, and I'll say it again, according to
>>Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of
>>Understanding.
>
>Response: So where is wisdom dwelling with prudence at? And
>where did he find knowlegde and descretion, ya know they
>were hiding out somewhere. By the way if Jesus wisdom and
>understading who is this knowledge charecter?

Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same for knowledge.

>
>Futhremore you never did tell me which street corner that
>was Jesus was shouting (prov 1:20) just curious to its
>location.

Reply8: John Gill writes the following: "she uttereth her voice in the streets: of the city of Jerusalem, and other places; nor is this contrary to Mat_12:19; which is to be understood of crying in a bawling and litigious way, of lifting up the voice in self-commendation, neither of which Christ did; and yet might cry and utter his voice in the streets, that is, publicly preach his Gospel there, as he did; and he also sent his servants into the streets and lanes of the city to call in sinners by the ministry of the word, Luk_14:21; which perhaps may be meant of places in the Gentile world; nor is this sense to be excluded here; it may be figuratively understood of the public ministration of the word and ordinances in the church called the streets and broad ways of it, Son_3:2."

>>
>>Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did
>>Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you
>>still aren't dealing with the issues.
>
>
>Response: Because he *personifying* wisdom that is why. He
>is applying human charecteristics to an abstraction. It is
>beyond grammer.

Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of AMONAH.

>>Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv
>>3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want
>>to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing
>>the translations we could come up with if we went around and
>>just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.
>
>
>Response: Well if I used yours in BDAG I could keep
>oringinator, since it says "the first cause..."
>
>Cool I can keep originator, thanks.

Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in Col 1:16 and john 1:3.


>>
>>Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for
>>the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers
>>to positions of authority, and when that happens, it
>>typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to
>>specific authority, but authorities in general. I have
>>demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid,
>>unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter
>>for it.
>
>Response: The plural form is no different than the singular,
>all it means is that there is more than one. Again arche
>means ruler, how else do we get monarch, archangel etc. it
>had to come from somewhere. I think you are winging it now.

Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same thing.


>>
>
>>
>>Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are
>>not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14.
>
>Response: Homemade greek grammer, plural makes no
>difference.

Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural is often used for authority, but the singular is almost never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so much.

>
> Again,
>>there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev
>>3:14 here..
>
>Resp0onse: Then originator fits, if that is the case.

Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John 1:3. Can't have it both ways.

>
> You are using a lexical entry that disagrees
>>with your position, because it flat out states that
>>"first-created" is the "linguistically probable"
>>translation. Even if all of your entries were valid
>>comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very
>>small when compared to mine.
>
>REsponse: And so is originator according to BDAG, and size
>means nothing unless you want to agree that qanah means
>acquired or possessed in Prov 8.

Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH? I stand by what I have said.

>>
>>>Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural
>>gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the
>>masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts
>>your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for
>>it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.
>
>
>Response: Wisdom as a female counts for genre, since he is
>personifying it. Talk about not seeing the forest for the
>trees.
>>

Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.

-Tony

>Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I
>accept it. You obviously don't.

Response: Well here is the problem I think you run into with that.

1. You said that wisdom is an attribute of God.

2. You said that wisdom is a creation.

3. If wisdom is a creation, then there was a time when God had no wisdom.

4. Therefore, you have a not so bright God, and a God who had to create an attribute.
>
>Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance
>in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this,
>no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points.
>That really is the significant part here too. While they
>disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was
>Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I
>can't think of a single time it was!

Response: Well, as you know I don't regard the church fathers an infallible, secondly, there are alot of issues where me and the church fathers disagree. Why? Because there method of interpretatoin was different than my own, not saying that all of them were off, but they got a little off on a lot of topics.
>Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does
>not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the
>Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate
>with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in
>Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.

Response: Wisdom cannot have a birth, an attribute of an infinite God cannot be created. So it is not fitting.
>Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God
>can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the
>source of all things. Word usage is not simply the
>appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the
>type of construction it is used in).

Response: God cannot create an attribute otherwise God is not God. Each aspect of his charecter must be eternal.
>
>Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same
>for knowledge.

Response: Wisdom is said to dwell with prudence,how do you dwell with a non person?
>Reply8: John Gill writes the following:

Respnse: Well John GIll is definitely stretching it, because Matt's passage is a qoute from Isaiah about God's servant, it has nothing to do with Proverbs, it is not even qouted in Matt, futhremore, it said that Christ would not be yelling , the excate opposiste of proverbs. And Luke 14:21 is a parable not a fufillemnt of proverbs 8, again another stretch.

>Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL
>gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been
>feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is
>NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of
>AMONAH.


Response: First of all there is no article infront of Amon so it is not the architech, it is indefinite, so she is besides God as *a* architech wisdom is not an architech in itself. So the title is masculine but has nothing to do with wisdom's gender.
>
>
>Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically
>probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as
>we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of
>TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in
>Col 1:16 and john 1:3.

Response: Well Romans 11:36 expresses agency through the Father as well. And the only reasno why I said that was because you wanted lexical data, that is all, I still think ruler is the best answer.
>Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably
>different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I
>have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN
>normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that
>John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same
>thing.

Response: Uh yes, the only reason why the plural is used is because the writer is always discussing more than one ruler, archon is just a cognate of arch, just because it is a participle does not change it's meaning.
>
>Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural
>is often used for authority, but the singular is almost
>never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have
>been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so
>much.

Response; The only difference in the biblical writers minds was the audiecne they were talking to or about, they just happened to be plural. Again archon is just a cognate.
>Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John
>1:3. Can't have it both ways.

Response: Not really Roman 11:36 places agency through the Father, and ruler is consistant with Col 1:17-18, but I think I would rather go with ruler.
>>Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH?
> I stand by what I have said.

Response: Well consider my arugement above.
>
>Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he
>CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN
>is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.

Response: You are ignoring genre, you do realize that Solomon is writting poetry don't you? Futhremore I have explained why wisdom cannot be created.

>>Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I
>>accept it. You obviously don't.
>
>Response: Well here is the problem I think you run into with
>that.
>
>1. You said that wisdom is an attribute of God.
>
>2. You said that wisdom is a creation.
>
>3. If wisdom is a creation, then there was a time when God
>had no wisdom.
>
>4. Therefore, you have a not so bright God, and a God who
>had to create an attribute.

Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the personifier.


>>
>>Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance
>>in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this,
>>no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points.
>>That really is the significant part here too. While they
>>disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was
>>Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I
>>can't think of a single time it was!
>
>Response: Well, as you know I don't regard the church
>fathers an infallible, secondly, there are alot of issues
>where me and the church fathers disagree. Why? Because
>there method of interpretatoin was different than my own,
>not saying that all of them were off, but they got a little
>off on a lot of topics.

Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they did not disgree on this.


>>Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does
>>not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the
>>Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate
>>with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in
>>Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.
>
>Response: Wisdom cannot have a birth, an attribute of an
>infinite God cannot be created. So it is not fitting.

Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.

>>Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God
>>can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the
>>source of all things. Word usage is not simply the
>>appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the
>>type of construction it is used in).
>
>Response: God cannot create an attribute otherwise God is
>not God. Each aspect of his charecter must be eternal.
>>

Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the personifier of it is created.

>>Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same
>>for knowledge.
>
>Response: Wisdom is said to dwell with prudence,how do you
>dwell with a non person?

Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.

>>Reply8: John Gill writes the following:
>
>Respnse: Well John GIll is definitely stretching it, because
>Matt's passage is a qoute from Isaiah about God's servant,
>it has nothing to do with Proverbs, it is not even qouted in
>Matt, futhremore, it said that Christ would not be yelling ,
>the excate opposiste of proverbs. And Luke 14:21 is a
>parable not a fufillemnt of proverbs 8, again another
>stretch.

Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active (i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.

>
>>Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL
>>gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been
>>feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is
>>NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of
>>AMONAH.
>
>
>Response: First of all there is no article infront of Amon
>so it is not the architech, it is indefinite, so she is
>besides God as *a* architech wisdom is not an architech in
>itself. So the title is masculine but has nothing to do
>with wisdom's gender.

Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote again though.

"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine and require additional data to narrow the gender to one. Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.

"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your correspondent, is not happy with the answer."


>>
>>
>>Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically
>>probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as
>>we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of
>>TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in
>>Col 1:16 and john 1:3.
>
>Response: Well Romans 11:36 expresses agency through the
>Father as well. And the only reasno why I said that was
>because you wanted lexical data, that is all, I still think
>ruler is the best answer.

Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.


>>Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably
>>different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I
>>have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN
>>normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that
>>John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same
>>thing.
>
>Response: Uh yes, the only reason why the plural is used is
>because the writer is always discussing more than one ruler,
>archon is just a cognate of arch, just because it is a
>participle does not change it's meaning.

Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.

>>
>>Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural
>>is often used for authority, but the singular is almost
>>never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have
>>been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so
>>much.
>
>Response; The only difference in the biblical writers minds
>was the audiecne they were talking to or about, they just
>happened to be plural. Again archon is just a cognate.

Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a person with a genitive.

>>Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John
>>1:3. Can't have it both ways.
>
>Response: Not really Roman 11:36 places agency through the
>Father, and ruler is consistant with Col 1:17-18, but I
>think I would rather go with ruler.

Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.

>>>Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH?
>> I stand by what I have said.
>
>Response: Well consider my arugement above.
>>
>>Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he
>>CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN
>>is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.
>
>Response: You are ignoring genre, you do realize that
>Solomon is writting poetry don't you? Futhremore I have
>explained why wisdom cannot be created.

Reply9. The Targum says created, the LXX says created, the Hebrew uses birth imagry. Nobody claims the attribute itself is, but the personifier is.

-Tony

>Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the
>personifier.

Response: Seems to me that Christ sometimes is wisdom (when it is convenient) and sometimes is not wisdom. So this means that proverbs 8 does not support the creatoin of Christ right?

>Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they
>did not disgree on this.

Response: Origin struggled with wisdom being created however, wondering like I am if there was a time God had no wisdom. But he was consistant in keeping wisdom as Christ unlike you are doing.

>
>Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many
>translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.

Respnse: So it birht is imagry then wisdom was not born so to speak therefore this verse cannot support Chirst having a beginning right?
>>>
>>>
>
>Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the
>personifier of it is created.

Response: So since the attribute is the topic of PRoverbs 8, and is nto created therfore you can't use this verse to support Christ beign created correct?

?
>
>Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.

Response: You getting wierd on me here.

>>Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think
>it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only
>time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active
>(i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.

Response: So sometimes wisdom is Chirst and other times it is not? Ohhh kkkk.
>
>Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted
>in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote
>again though.
>
>"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine
>cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of
>the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender
>of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine
>role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it
>identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages
>have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine
>and require additional data to narrow the gender to one.
>Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.
>
>"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a
>feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a
>masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a
>masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your
>correspondent, is not happy with the answer."

Respnse: 1. I think the prof is ignoring genre, but again as I said I will give him the respect and double check wiht my prof on thursday.
>
>Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference
>BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used
>in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.

Response: That is interesting in BDAG a causal dia, never heard of it before. I don't think the construction makes a difference, it is just a genitive, unless you are arguing for a specific type of gentive, it would make no difference, now if yuo could illustrate why it can't then that would be a diffferent story.

>>Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of
>ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural
>of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit
>the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction
>is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.

Response: They are cognates, they mean the same thign.

>>Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE
>LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided
>the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used
>in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a
>person with a genitive.

Response: Why would I have to provide statistical data, unless there was reason too. In othere words what is grammtically special about that genitive that makes it impossible for arche to fit there?

>Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.

Response: That is a new on me, never heard of an active dia.
>

>>Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the
>>personifier.
>
>Response: Seems to me that Christ sometimes is wisdom (when
>it is convenient) and sometimes is not wisdom. So this
>means that proverbs 8 does not support the creatoin of
>Christ right?

Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.

>
>>Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they
>>did not disgree on this.
>
>Response: Origin struggled with wisdom being created
>however, wondering like I am if there was a time God had no
>wisdom. But he was consistant in keeping wisdom as Christ
>unlike you are doing.

Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.


>
>>
>>Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many
>>translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.
>
>Respnse: So it birht is imagry then wisdom was not born so
>to speak therefore this verse cannot support Chirst having a
>beginning right?

Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.

>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the
>>personifier of it is created.
>
>Response: So since the attribute is the topic of PRoverbs 8,
>and is nto created therfore you can't use this verse to
>support Christ beign created correct?

Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is Christ.

>
>?
>>
>>Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.
>
>Response: You getting wierd on me here.

Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God, no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?

>
>>>Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think
>>it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only
>>time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active
>>(i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.
>
>Response: So sometimes wisdom is Chirst and other times it
>is not? Ohhh kkkk.

Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier of an attribute. When we see the active personification, this is Christ.

>>
>>Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted
>>in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote
>>again though.
>>
>>"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine
>>cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of
>>the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender
>>of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine
>>role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it
>>identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages
>>have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine
>>and require additional data to narrow the gender to one.
>>Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.
>>
>>"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a
>>feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a
>>masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a
>>masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your
>>correspondent, is not happy with the answer."
>
>Respnse: 1. I think the prof is ignoring genre, but again
>as I said I will give him the respect and double check wiht
>my prof on thursday.

Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and grammar is 100% the issue.

>>
>>Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference
>>BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used
>>in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.
>
>Response: That is interesting in BDAG a causal dia, never
>heard of it before. I don't think the construction makes a
>difference, it is just a genitive, unless you are arguing
>for a specific type of gentive, it would make no difference,
>now if yuo could illustrate why it can't then that would be
>a diffferent story.

Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is associated with intermediate agency...

>
>>>Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of
>>ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural
>>of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit
>>the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction
>>is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.
>
>Response: They are cognates, they mean the same thign.

Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here lexicon, and look up ARCWN.

>
>>>Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE
>>LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided
>>the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used
>>in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a
>>person with a genitive.
>
>Response: Why would I have to provide statistical data,
>unless there was reason too. In othere words what is
>grammtically special about that genitive that makes it
>impossible for arche to fit there?
>

Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct answer.


>>Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.
>
>Response: That is a new on me, never heard of an active dia.
>>

Reply10: :)

Ok a couple more of these then I am going to bed.
?
>
>Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when
>Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.

Response: But Christ cannot accurately personify wisdom since he is created and wisdom is not. Chirst is basically fronting so to speak, because true wisdom is greater than he is.

A finite creature cannot personify an infinite attribute correctly.

>>
>Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it
>fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky
>meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he
>thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.

Response: That is because alot of the church Fathers read the NT back into the Old Testament, I don't do that, I read it as it is first, and unless there is reason to then I link them togther.

But neithre the context of Matt nor 1 Cor sends me back to proverbs 8. You'd almost have to force it,but yuo don't seem to mind.


>Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the
>LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being
>described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.

Response: But true wisdom is not created, therefore Christ is an insuffient representative off wisdom.
>Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is
>Christ.

Respsne: How can Christ personify the infinite?
>Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God,
>no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?

Respnose: Nope, Jesus does not even mention proverbs 8.
>Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier
>of an attribute. When we see the active personification,
>this is Christ.

Response: An infinite attribute cannot be personified by a finite creature.
>
>Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and
>grammar is 100% the issue.

Response: No, because Solomon could have chosen any of God's attributes to personify.
>>Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that
>missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is
>associated with intermediate agency...

Response: sure. I will think about it.
>Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly
>neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here
>lexicon, and look up ARCWN.

Response: I did. Same root
>Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a
>reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better
>understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is
>no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to
>the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct
>answer.

Response: That is a good point. I think a reader in hte first century could go either way, but more towards my view because of what arch means
>

>
>Ok a couple more of these then I am going to bed.
>?
>>
>>Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when
>>Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.
>
>Response: But Christ cannot accurately personify wisdom
>since he is created and wisdom is not. Chirst is basically
>fronting so to speak, because true wisdom is greater than he
is.

Reply11: That is nothing more than a temporal distinction. Not really an issue in personification. If this was an issue, nobody could ever personify any attribute.

>
>A finite creature cannot personify an infinite attribute
>correctly.

Reply11: Only temporally different. Not an issue in personification.

>
>>>
>>Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it
>>fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky
>>meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he
>>thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.
>
>Response: That is because alot of the church Fathers read
>the NT back into the Old Testament, I don't do that, I read
>it as it is first, and unless there is reason to then I link
>them togther.
>
>But neithre the context of Matt nor 1 Cor sends me back to
>proverbs 8. You'd almost have to force it,but yuo don't
>seem to mind.

Reply11: Well Wisdom is Wisdom. There are not different Wisdoms. Prov 8 is obvious the wisdom of God, for it is the worker in creation. Christ is called the wisdom of God. Christ is the intermediate agent in creation. I don't see a force here. I see parallels.

>
>
>>Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the
>>LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being
>>described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.
>
>Response: But true wisdom is not created, therefore Christ
>is an insuffient representative off wisdom.

Reply11: A temporal limitation on Christ does not stop him from personifying the attribute, especially in light of the wisdom (as an attribute) fully dwelling in him.

Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.


>>Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is
>>Christ.
>
>Respsne: How can Christ personify the infinite?

Reply11: A temporal distinction does not make something infinite. Again, I reference you to Col 2:3. If Christ can be filled with ALL the treasures of wisdom, obviously he can personify it.

>>Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God,
>>no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?
>
>Respnose: Nope, Jesus does not even mention proverbs 8.

Reply11: The parallels between Christ and Wisdom can't be missed.

>>Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier
>>of an attribute. When we see the active personification,
>>this is Christ.
>
>Response: An infinite attribute cannot be personified by a
>finite creature.

Reply11: In light of ALL wisdom being in Christ, he absolutely can.

>>
>>Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and
>>grammar is 100% the issue.
>
>Response: No, because Solomon could have chosen any of God's
>attributes to personify.

Reply11: Has nothing to do with it. Wisdom is grammatically feminine.

>>>Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that
>>missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is
>>associated with intermediate agency...
>
>Response: sure. I will think about it.
>>Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly
>>neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here
>>lexicon, and look up ARCWN.
>
>Response: I did. Same root

Reply11: Yes, root, but not the same form. What is the use of ARCH vs. ARCWN. There is a difference. Start searching the LXX and NT, you'll see it.

>>Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a
>>reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better
>>understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is
>>no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to
>>the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct
>>answer.
>
>Response: That is a good point. I think a reader in hte
>first century could go either way, but more towards my view
>because of what arch means
>>

Reply11: Well, if we look at the writings that the reader had available (the GNT and the LXX), we get a general picture of what would go on in their head. Ruler is not very probable when a statistical analysis is made.

Regards,
Tony

I got to run to class (no not Greek) so I can only answer a couple of these but I will be back later on, I have to celebrate my birthday that past recently, so if my wife (that is not a bad thing) does not take up all my time I can be back as early as this afternoon or later on this evening. depends
>
>Reply11: That is nothing more than a temporal distinction.
>Not really an issue in personification. If this was an
>issue, nobody could ever personify any attribute.

Response: If Christ is just a personifier, then he really is not wisdom the attribute, he is just a role player. Who throws on a shakespere wig and plays the role.
>
>
>Reply11: Only temporally different. Not an issue in
>personification.

Response: Again Christ is not the attribute, therefore Christ is not wisdom,he is just an actor or a personifyer as you call it
>>
>Reply11: Well Wisdom is Wisdom. There are not different
>Wisdoms. Prov 8 is obvious the wisdom of God, for it is the
>worker in creation. Christ is called the wisdom of God.
>Christ is the intermediate agent in creation. I don't see a
>force here. I see parallels.

Response: Well if Wisdom is wisdom and Christ is wisdom then wisdom was created, if wisdom is wisdom and Christ only personifyes it, then Christ is not wisdom (the attribute) he is just a personifyer.
>
>>
>Reply11: A temporal limitation on Christ does not stop him
>from personifying the attribute, especially in light of the
>wisdom (as an attribute) fully dwelling in him.

Response: Then Christ is not really wisdom, he is not the attribute he is not really wisdom at all, he is just an actor. So it is inaccurate to call him wisdom.

>
>Reply11: A temporal distinction does not make something
>infinite. Again, I reference you to Col 2:3. If Christ can
>be filled with ALL the treasures of wisdom, obviously he can
>personify it.

Response: Ok, so according to you he is not wisdom? He is just a personification of it? And if that is so wisdom in Proverbs 8 really is not wisdom either.
>>Reply11: The parallels between Christ and Wisdom can't be
>missed.

Response: Unless there is different context involved. Context drives the meaning of the word, and 1 Cor is not where near Prov 8. They are'nt even the same genre.
>>Reply11: In light of ALL wisdom being in Christ, he
>absolutely can.

Response: Then he is not really wisdom.
>
>Reply11: Has nothing to do with it. Wisdom is
>grammatically feminine.

REsponse: Well let me double check that one later in the week, but Christ still is not wisdom according to you. So when Solomon said get wisdom, was he saying get God's attribute or get Christ?
>>Reply11: Yes, root, but not the same form. What is the use
>of ARCH vs. ARCWN. There is a difference. Start searching
>the LXX and NT, you'll see it.

Response: Wallace on page 114 has Rev 3:14 (see the cf part) as a subjective genitive, if this is so then it really means that Christ is not created at all, but rather the beginner. And that fits with Col 1:16 and John 1:3 because even though he is an intermediater he is still the one starting the creation. And that fits well within the context.

arxe tes ktiseos tou theou

Beginning of the creation of God but tou theou is the subject

God's creation began, but in reference to a person it is

God's creation beginner
>
>Reply11: Well, if we look at the writings that the reader
>had available (the GNT and the LXX), we get a general
>picture of what would go on in their head. Ruler is not
>very probable when a statistical analysis is made.

Response: as a subjective gentitive it is.

Just going to hit the points that need replying to so we can see about shortening this up.

1) No, Christ is not the attribute, he is the one that personifies the Wisdom of God. When this is actively being personified, he is the one doing it.

2) The Wisdom of God is the Wisdom of God. There is no contextual limitation on this.

3) I'm wondering if you can demonstrate a single use of ARCH ala Rev 3:14 that is not with a partitive genitive. It has been several months since I've done my word study, but that was one of the points I noticed. It was consistently partitive. It sounds like Wallace is reading his theology into things. Christ can't be the one starting it, for the intermediate agent can't start it, the intermediate agent is intermediate. The middle man never makes the product, he only delivers it.

-Tony

>Just going to hit the points that need replying to so we can
>see about shortening this up.

Response: Sure no problem, look like I am going out later on tonight.
>
>1) No, Christ is not the attribute, he is the one that
>personifies the Wisdom of God. When this is actively being
>personified, he is the one doing it.

Response: So that means that Christ is only wisdom part of the time and not all the time. Part time wisdom LOL. So when Paul called Chirst the wisdom of God he was calling him part time wisdom of God, I see.

Being serious when it says that wisdom was created (and you agree it was created) even though Christ is only personifying would you agree that Christ is an *accurate* personifyer of wisdom?

Meaning even though Christ is parttime, would not his personification illustrate an accurate portrayal of what the attribute wisdom really is? A creation, if so then that means that wisdom is created and God was wisdomless, if not that means that Christ is not an accurate personification of the attribute wisdom. Ouch.

>2) The Wisdom of God is the Wisdom of God. There is no
>contextual limitation on this.

Response: But listen, if Christ is an accurate personifier of wisdom, then if he is personifing wisdom at proverbs 8 then that means that wisdom truely was created and God was wisdomless at one point, futhermore, if Christ is not accurate, he misrepresented an attribute of God and therefore sinned.

Futhermore, I found this in response to your professor friend in my Hebrew Textbook, if I am reading it right then I've got the ansewr, this is a pretty technical book. Walke and O'Connor p 109 in Biblical Hebrew Syntax...

" Sometimes the grammatical form of a noun *differs* from its semantic significance, for example, a collective noun such as moledet 'descendents' (fem) or an abstract noun such as qoholet 'teacher'(fem) may have a male referent. When such clashes arise in a language, concord can follow grammaticle gender such as (as it does in Latin or Italian) or it can follow the semantic orientation of the noun: Hebrew prefers the latter course sometimes called the constructio ad sensum (construction according to the sense"). Thus we find hayah gohelet hacam 'the teacher was wise (qol 12:9).

This explains Tony why amon being masucline can have a femal referent i.e. wisdom, Hebrew does this and likes to go with the constructio ad sensum.
>
>3) I'm wondering if you can demonstrate a single use of ARCH
>ala Rev 3:14 that is not with a partitive genitive. It has
>been several months since I've done my word study, but that
>was one of the points I noticed. It was consistently
>partitive.

Response: Umm I don't see Mark 1:1 as partitive.

arche tou euaggeliou, I see that as subjective as well.

Meaning the gospel's start.

It sounds like Wallace is reading his theology
>into things. Christ can't be the one starting it, for the
>intermediate agent can't start it, the intermediate agent is
>intermediate. The middle man never makes the product, he
>only delivers it.
>

Response: Well I think it can refer to him starting, depends on how God worked through him. If Jesus spoke and then God empowered him or worked through him then he is the one who started all things.

>>Just going to hit the points that need replying to so we can
>>see about shortening this up.
>
>Response: Sure no problem, look like I am going out later on
>tonight.
>>
>>1) No, Christ is not the attribute, he is the one that
>>personifies the Wisdom of God. When this is actively being
>>personified, he is the one doing it.
>
>Response: So that means that Christ is only wisdom part of
>the time and not all the time. Part time wisdom LOL. So
>when Paul called Chirst the wisdom of God he was calling him
>part time wisdom of God, I see.

Reply2: This is a complete misrepresentation of our position. Jesus is the personifier of the attribute of Wisdom, he is not the attribute itself. That is the point.

>
>Being serious when it says that wisdom was created (and you
>agree it was created) even though Christ is only
>personifying would you agree that Christ is an *accurate*
>personifyer of wisdom?

Reply2: Yes, Christ is accurate, for all of wisdom dwells in him (Col 2:3).

>
>Meaning even though Christ is parttime, would not his
>personification illustrate an accurate portrayal of what the
>attribute wisdom really is? A creation, if so then that
>means that wisdom is created and God was wisdomless, if not
>that means that Christ is not an accurate personification of
>the attribute wisdom. Ouch.

Reply2: Strawman at its best, yet again. It is wisdom personified that is speaking, which is Christ, for he is the personifier. When the personifier speaks, he is speaking of himself.

>
>>2) The Wisdom of God is the Wisdom of God. There is no
>>contextual limitation on this.
>
>Response: But listen, if Christ is an accurate personifier
>of wisdom, then if he is personifing wisdom at proverbs 8
>then that means that wisdom truely was created and God was
>wisdomless at one point, futhermore, if Christ is not
>accurate, he misrepresented an attribute of God and
>therefore sinned.

Reply2: No. The things Wisdom says in Proverbs 8 is the personifier speaking. He is speaking of himself, as Wisdom, hence the personal pronouns, ect.

>
>Futhermore, I found this in response to your professor
>friend in my Hebrew Textbook, if I am reading it right then
>I've got the ansewr, this is a pretty technical book. Walke
>and O'Connor p 109 in Biblical Hebrew Syntax...
>
>" Sometimes the grammatical form of a noun *differs* from
>its semantic significance, for example, a collective noun
>such as moledet 'descendents' (fem) or an abstract noun such
>as qoholet 'teacher'(fem) may have a male referent. When
>such clashes arise in a language, concord can follow
>grammaticle gender such as (as it does in Latin or Italian)
>or it can follow the semantic orientation of the noun:
>Hebrew prefers the latter course sometimes called the
>constructio ad sensum (construction according to the
>sense"). Thus we find hayah gohelet hacam 'the teacher was
>wise (qol 12:9).
>

Reply2: Actually, thank you, this proves our point perfectly. Sometimes the gender of the noun and the gender of the person clash. This is the case with Solomon as the congregator. In light of Wisdom also being a feminine noun, the masculine AMON demonstrates that natural gender of the person, just as the application of congregator to Solomon demonstrates the natural gender.

>This explains Tony why amon being masucline can have a femal
>referent i.e. wisdom, Hebrew does this and likes to go with
>the constructio ad sensum.

Reply2: Yes, it does, because the gender of the person is masculine! If the gender of the person were feminine, it would say AMONAH.

>>
>>3) I'm wondering if you can demonstrate a single use of ARCH
>>ala Rev 3:14 that is not with a partitive genitive. It has
>>been several months since I've done my word study, but that
>>was one of the points I noticed. It was consistently
>>partitive.
>
>Response: Umm I don't see Mark 1:1 as partitive.
>
>arche tou euaggeliou, I see that as subjective as well.
>
>Meaning the gospel's start.

Reply2: Better look a bit closer. Yes, its start, not the starter. In other words, the first part of it, just like Jesus is the first part of the group of creation at Rev 3:14.

>
>It sounds like Wallace is reading his theology
>>into things. Christ can't be the one starting it, for the
>>intermediate agent can't start it, the intermediate agent is
>>intermediate. The middle man never makes the product, he
>>only delivers it.
>>
>
>Response: Well I think it can refer to him starting, depends
>on how God worked through him. If Jesus spoke and then God
>empowered him or worked through him then he is the one who
>started all things.

Reply2: Mark 1:1 works against you here, because it is not in reference to the starter, as you would argue for Rev 3:14, but the initial part, the first one.

>
>Reply2: This is a complete misrepresentation of our
>position. Jesus is the personifier of the attribute of
>Wisdom, he is not the attribute itself. That is the point.


Response: Umm that is not what Paul says. 1 Cor 1:24 " Christ, the power of God, and **THE WISDOM OF GOD***.

Now Toney can you show me in the text where it says that Christ is only the personifier of wisdom and not the attribute? Because according to Paul Christ is the attribute.

I mean you did use this verse to support you did'nt you?
>Reply2: Yes, Christ is accurate, for all of wisdom dwells
>in him (Col 2:3).

Response: But where does it say that Christ is only a personifier? I mean it seems from this verse that he is wisdom, and you say he is created so unless you want to admit that you are reading personifier into the text, God was once wisdomless.
>
>Reply2: Strawman at its best, yet again. It is wisdom
>personified that is speaking, which is Christ, for he is the
>personifier. When the personifier speaks, he is speaking of
>himself.

Response: Can you show me that last statement in scripture? I want to read it for myself, because you would never ever add anything to the text now would you Toney? Besides Paul seems pretty clear that Jesus is wisdom, he does not say what your saying. Must be the New NWT or something.
>
>Reply2: No. The things Wisdom says in Proverbs 8 is the
>personifier speaking. He is speaking of himself, as Wisdom,
>hence the personal pronouns, ect.

Response: Paul says that is wisdom spealking 100%, remember you applied this verse to Proverbs not me.
>Reply2: Actually, thank you, this proves our point
>perfectly. Sometimes the gender of the noun and the gender
>of the person clash. This is the case with Solomon as the
>congregator. In light of Wisdom also being a feminine noun,
>the masculine AMON demonstrates that natural gender of the
>person, just as the application of congregator to Solomon
>demonstrates the natural gender.

Response: Or Amon being masucline can have a femine referent. No problem.
>>Reply2: Yes, it does, because the gender of the person is
>masculine! If the gender of the person were feminine, it
>would say AMONAH.

Response: No it can have amon and still be feminine, amon is an abstract noun.
>
>Reply2: Better look a bit closer. Yes, its start, not the
>starter. In other words, the first part of it, just like
>Jesus is the first part of the group of creation at Rev
>3:14.

Response: No Mark is presenting all of the gospel not part of it. And the subjective would read like this. Jesus Christ gospel began by the will of God...

A partitive has to be part of a whole, Mark is not presenting part of the gospel, he is presenting all of it.
>
>Reply2: Mark 1:1 works against you here, because it is not
>in reference to the starter, as you would argue for Rev
>3:14, but the initial part, the first one.

Response: No he is presenting all of the gospel not part of it.

Oso flips back, the screen gets dark, he grabs tony's head and FINISH HIM.

>>
>>Reply2: This is a complete misrepresentation of our
>>position. Jesus is the personifier of the attribute of
>>Wisdom, he is not the attribute itself. That is the point.
>
>
>Response: Umm that is not what Paul says. 1 Cor 1:24 "
>Christ, the power of God, and **THE WISDOM OF GOD***.
>
>Now Toney can you show me in the text where it says that
>Christ is only the personifier of wisdom and not the
>attribute? Because according to Paul Christ is the
>attribute.
>
>I mean you did use this verse to support you did'nt you?

Reply3: Basic logic dictates that a person is not an attribute. Another case of just arguing to argue.


>>Reply2: Yes, Christ is accurate, for all of wisdom dwells
>>in him (Col 2:3).
>
>Response: But where does it say that Christ is only a
>personifier? I mean it seems from this verse that he is
>wisdom, and you say he is created so unless you want to
>admit that you are reading personifier into the text, God
>was once wisdomless.

Reply3: I'm not reading personifier into the text, because the text is the personifier speaking.

>>
>>Reply2: Strawman at its best, yet again. It is wisdom
>>personified that is speaking, which is Christ, for he is the
>>personifier. When the personifier speaks, he is speaking of
>>himself.
>
>Response: Can you show me that last statement in scripture?
>I want to read it for myself, because you would never ever
>add anything to the text now would you Toney? Besides Paul
>seems pretty clear that Jesus is wisdom, he does not say
>what your saying. Must be the New NWT or something.
>>

Reply3: Common sense my friend. It is great when you use it. A person is not an attribute, a person can only personify an attribute.

>>Reply2: No. The things Wisdom says in Proverbs 8 is the
>>personifier speaking. He is speaking of himself, as Wisdom,
>>hence the personal pronouns, ect.
>
>Response: Paul says that is wisdom spealking 100%, remember
>you applied this verse to Proverbs not me.

Reply3: An attribute can't speak, the personifier of the attribute can.

>>Reply2: Actually, thank you, this proves our point
>>perfectly. Sometimes the gender of the noun and the gender
>>of the person clash. This is the case with Solomon as the
>>congregator. In light of Wisdom also being a feminine noun,
>>the masculine AMON demonstrates that natural gender of the
>>person, just as the application of congregator to Solomon
>>demonstrates the natural gender.
>
>Response: Or Amon being masucline can have a femine
>referent. No problem.

Reply3: As my Hebrew teaching friend point out, that makes NO SENSE. That isn't how Hebrew work. Even your quote is working against you. If Wisdom is naturally feminine, the feminine form of the word is used, AMONAH. There is no basis. You are stuck. Do I need to quote him again for you?

>>>Reply2: Yes, it does, because the gender of the person is
>>masculine! If the gender of the person were feminine, it
>>would say AMONAH.
>
>Response: No it can have amon and still be feminine, amon is
>an abstract noun.

Reply3: LOL. This is too funny! You are so determined to be right that you make of these arguments that have no basis in reality! It does not matter what AMON is, the fact is AMON and AMONAH are the SAME WORD, one is FEMININE for use with women and one is masculine for use with men. If someone is a male, you use AMON, if someone is a female you use AMONAH. Your argument is dead wrong, and to think you already took Hebrew. You might want to take it again...

>>
>>Reply2: Better look a bit closer. Yes, its start, not the
>>starter. In other words, the first part of it, just like
>>Jesus is the first part of the group of creation at Rev
>>3:14.
>
>Response: No Mark is presenting all of the gospel not part
>of it. And the subjective would read like this. Jesus
>Christ gospel began by the will of God...

Reply3: Except it doesn't say that at all! It says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. " I'll add that to my list of examples, thanks.

>
>A partitive has to be part of a whole, Mark is not
>presenting part of the gospel, he is presenting all of it.

Reply3: The beginning of the gospel is presented in the prophets. That is his point. It is obviously partitive.

>>
>>Reply2: Mark 1:1 works against you here, because it is not
>>in reference to the starter, as you would argue for Rev
>>3:14, but the initial part, the first one.
>
>Response: No he is presenting all of the gospel not part of
>it.

Reply3: The sentence is part of verse 2, which makes the beginning = what has been written in the prophets.

>
>Oso flips back, the screen gets dark, he grabs tony's head
>and FINISH HIM.

Reply3: Application of common sense and a quick contextual check goes a long way to help you see the facts..

Tony: IF you cannot provide scripture for the following , don't waste your time.

>Reply3: Basic logic dictates that a person is not an
>attribute. Another case of just arguing to argue.

Respnse: So you disagree with Paul when he says that Christ is wisdom, if you disagree with that statement and want it to mean something else than what I am saying, then provide scripture, otherwise it is time to move on.
>
>Reply3: I'm not reading personifier into the text, because
>the text is the personifier speaking.

Response: So now the text is the personifier? Are you even readin what you write?? And can you support this with scripture, if not then it is time to move on. This is a non response
>>>
>
>Reply3: Common sense my friend. It is great when you use
>it. A person is not an attribute, a person can only
>personify an attribute.

Response: I asked for scripture support not common sense, that is three non responses. Time to move on Tony, ya got nothing here.
>
>Reply3: An attribute can't speak, the personifier of the
>attribute can.

Response: And that attribute is Christ according to Paul, if you disagree then provide scripture, other wise, it's time to hang it up.

>>Reply3: As my Hebrew teaching friend point out, that makes
>NO SENSE. That isn't how Hebrew work. Even your quote is
>working against you. If Wisdom is naturally feminine, the
>feminine form of the word is used, AMONAH. There is no
>basis. You are stuck. Do I need to quote him again for
>you?

Response: Not at all my qoute illustrates that AMON bieng masucline can have a feminine referent. And that is what it is. That is why Amon can be used instead of AMONAH.
>
>Reply3: LOL. This is too funny! You are so determined to
>be right that you make of these arguments that have no basis
>in reality! It does not matter what AMON is, the fact is
>AMON and AMONAH are the SAME WORD, one is FEMININE for use
>with women and one is masculine for use with men. If
>someone is a male, you use AMON, if someone is a female you
>use AMONAH. Your argument is dead wrong, and to think you
>already took Hebrew. You might want to take it again...

Response: That is what Walke said, that a masculine word can have a feminine referent. Qohelet was fem its referent was Solomon, Amon is mascuine, it referent is wisdom.
>
>Reply3: Except it doesn't say that at all! It says, "The
>beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. "
>I'll add that to my list of examples, thanks.

Response: You did not read, I said as a SUBJECTIVE (genitive) it would read.

Jesus Christ Son of God gospel begins as it is written,

In a subjective genitive the genitive becomes the subject and a verbal noun is requirede. That is how you can tell it is a subjective genitive if I am able to do this. If I cant it is something else.
>
>Reply3: The beginning of the gospel is presented in the
>prophets. That is his point. It is obviously partitive.

Response: But that does not make it part of the prophets.

>>Reply3: The sentence is part of verse 2, which makes the
>beginning = what has been written in the prophets.

Response: LOL that does not make it part of the prophets.

>>Reply3: Application of common sense and a quick contextual
>check goes a long way to help you see the facts..

Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.

>
>Tony: IF you cannot provide scripture for the following ,
>don't waste your time.
>
>>Reply3: Basic logic dictates that a person is not an
>>attribute. Another case of just arguing to argue.
>
>Respnse: So you disagree with Paul when he says that Christ
>is wisdom, if you disagree with that statement and want it
>to mean something else than what I am saying, then provide
>scripture, otherwise it is time to move on.

Reply4: Paul is obviously not teaching Christ is an attribute. This is evident by verse 30. Christ has "become to us Wisdom". How did he become Wisdom to them? By personifying the attribute, teaching them. We further know he is not the attribute from Col 2:3, where wisdom (the attribute is in him). It makes no sense to say he is in himself. Obviously the attribute vs. the personification.


>>
>>Reply3: I'm not reading personifier into the text, because
>>the text is the personifier speaking.
>
>Response: So now the text is the personifier? Are you even
>readin what you write?? And can you support this with
>scripture, if not then it is time to move on. This is a non
>response
>>>>

Reply4: This has been my position from the beginning. Let me break it down for you.

Christ is the personifier of Wisdom.
When "Wisdom" is speaking, because an attribute cannot speak, the personifier is doing it.
Christ is the personifier because all the treasures of wisdom dwell in him, but because of this, we also know that he is not the attribute.

>>
>>Reply3: Common sense my friend. It is great when you use
>>it. A person is not an attribute, a person can only
>>personify an attribute.
>
>Response: I asked for scripture support not common sense,
>that is three non responses. Time to move on Tony, ya got
>nothing here.

Reply4: Scripture is Col 2:3 and 1 Cor 1:30 that demonstrate Christ is not the attribute.

>>
>>Reply3: An attribute can't speak, the personifier of the
>>attribute can.
>
>Response: And that attribute is Christ according to Paul, if
>you disagree then provide scripture, other wise, it's time
>to hang it up.
>

Reply4: Nope, Paul does not argue that Christ is the attribute. This is nothing more than your assumption. Verse 30 does not allow for it to be the attribute, for Christ cannot become an attribute.

>>>Reply3: As my Hebrew teaching friend point out, that makes
>>NO SENSE. That isn't how Hebrew work. Even your quote is
>>working against you. If Wisdom is naturally feminine, the
>>feminine form of the word is used, AMONAH. There is no
>>basis. You are stuck. Do I need to quote him again for
>>you?
>
>Response: Not at all my qoute illustrates that AMON bieng
>masucline can have a feminine referent. And that is what it
>is. That is why Amon can be used instead of AMONAH.

Reply4: LOL. You are confused. The context of the statement was regarding cases where the feminine noun is applied to a male, such as congregator to Solomon. It has no bearing when there is a masculine and feminine form of the SAME word. See, again you are ASSUMING Wisdom is a female. This is entirely your assumption.

>>
>>Reply3: LOL. This is too funny! You are so determined to
>>be right that you make of these arguments that have no basis
>>in reality! It does not matter what AMON is, the fact is
>>AMON and AMONAH are the SAME WORD, one is FEMININE for use
>>with women and one is masculine for use with men. If
>>someone is a male, you use AMON, if someone is a female you
>>use AMONAH. Your argument is dead wrong, and to think you
>>already took Hebrew. You might want to take it again...
>
>Response: That is what Walke said, that a masculine word can
>have a feminine referent. Qohelet was fem its referent was
>Solomon, Amon is mascuine, it referent is wisdom.

Reply4: AMONAH is the feminine form of AMON, which, if the referent is feminine, is the form that is used. The quote was in reference to places where there is not a form that matches the gender of the referent.

>>
>>Reply3: Except it doesn't say that at all! It says, "The
>>beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. "
>>I'll add that to my list of examples, thanks.
>
>Response: You did not read, I said as a SUBJECTIVE
>(genitive) it would read.
>
>Jesus Christ Son of God gospel begins as it is written,

Reply4: LOL. Except it doesn't say that at all. It is obviously partitive. Read it as it naturally reads, which is not this way. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" is the natural and obvious way to translate it.

>
>In a subjective genitive the genitive becomes the subject
>and a verbal noun is requirede. That is how you can tell it
>is a subjective genitive if I am able to do this. If I cant
>it is something else.
>>
>>Reply3: The beginning of the gospel is presented in the
>>prophets. That is his point. It is obviously partitive.
>
>Response: But that does not make it part of the prophets.

Reply4: The writings of the prophets are what consistuted the beginning of the gospel.

>
>>>Reply3: The sentence is part of verse 2, which makes the
>>beginning = what has been written in the prophets.
>
>Response: LOL that does not make it part of the prophets.

Reply4: READ WHAT I AM WRITING. The beginning of the gospel = what is written in the prophets. That is what is being argued.

>
>>>Reply3: Application of common sense and a quick contextual
>>check goes a long way to help you see the facts..
>
>Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.

Reply4: I'm done? LOL. I've lost track of how many points you've either conceded or just stopped replying to me about.

Alright I will answer this one, then I think I am going to be ghost, there are close to 300 post, and I have answered everything.

>Reply4: Paul is obviously not teaching Christ is an
>attribute. This is evident by verse 30. Christ has "become
>to us Wisdom". How did he become Wisdom to them? By
>personifying the attribute, teaching them.

Respnse: That is crap, he became wisdom to us by teaching us about salvationm, since that is what the verse is talking about.

We further know
>he is not the attribute from Col 2:3, where wisdom (the
>attribute is in him). It makes no sense to say he is in
>himself. Obviously the attribute vs. the personification.

Response: knowldge is attributed to him there as well, are you now saying that knowledge is being personified as well? And actually he is refuting proto gnosticm which boasted of having secret knowledge, that is why Paul is saying Christ is all wisdom and he is the fullness of diety in bodily form, because the body was viewed as bad.
>
>>Reply4: This has been my position from the beginning. Let
>me break it down for you.
>
>Christ is the personifier of Wisdom.
>When "Wisdom" is speaking, because an attribute cannot
>speak, the personifier is doing it.
>Christ is the personifier because all the treasures of
>wisdom dwell in him, but because of this, we also know that
>he is not the attribute.

Response: All treasuer and wisdom have nothing to do with Proverbs, Paul does not call him an attribute but wisdom himself, he became wisdom of salvation for our sakes, again having nothing to do with proverbs 8. This is acutally quite simple
>>Reply4: Scripture is Col 2:3 and 1 Cor 1:30 that
>demonstrate Christ is not the attribute.

Response: Boy context means nothing to you does it, you just spit out verses as long as they got the same word in it.
>
>Reply4: Nope, Paul does not argue that Christ is the
>attribute. This is nothing more than your assumption.
>Verse 30 does not allow for it to be the attribute, for
>Christ cannot become an attribute.

Response: No he is talknig about salvation, oh nevermind you aer not interested in context.
>>Reply4: LOL. You are confused. The context of the
>statement was regarding cases where the feminine noun is
>applied to a male, such as congregator to Solomon. It has
>no bearing when there is a masculine and feminine form of
>the SAME word. See, again you are ASSUMING Wisdom is a
>female. This is entirely your assumption.

Response: Well that is because I realize that when you personify something you make it a person. Since abstract nouns can be different than there referent Solomon could have been talking about a male all along. And used *he*
>
>>>>Reply4: AMONAH is the feminine form of AMON, which, if the
>referent is feminine, is the form that is used. The quote
>was in reference to places where there is not a form that
>matches the gender of the referent.

Respnse: So therefore wisdom could have been a he.
>>
>Reply4: The writings of the prophets are what consistuted
>the beginning of the gospel.

Response: The thing written in the prophets was the prediction of JOhn the baptist coming, not lining up the gospel with the prophets. At least that is what Mark says.

>Reply4: READ WHAT I AM WRITING. The beginning of the
>gospel = what is written in the prophets. That is what is
>being argued.

Response: That is not what Mark says, he is talkng about John's coming, not equating them with the prophets.
>
>>Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.
>
>Reply4: I'm done? LOL. I've lost track of how many points
>you've either conceded or just stopped replying to me about.

Response: Yep you are doine and I am tired, when I conceded either you had a good point, or I double checked with my professor and changed my mind, and if I stopped replying it is because there three hundred post on here, and I, by myself cannot get to them all, trust me I am tired. If you have not noticed I replyed to everyone on here, alone. So if you really want to keep discussing or want to keep in contact I am ont leavnig the site totally, so you can hook up with me later or I can inbox me. But three hundred post is a little much, I'd like it to be more casual.

>Alright I will answer this one, then I think I am going to
>be ghost, there are close to 300 post, and I have answered
>everything.
>

Reply5: Answered? LOL. If you call answering, saying things like "I didn't know about that..." Or Simply failing to understand grammatical vs. natural gender.. Or failing to present evidence for your position (like demonstrating that a purely qualitative count noun even exists)... or simply denying things because they don't fit your view, without providing evidence.. then yeah, thats answering. However, i don't think you'll find a dictionary that provides that definition...

>>Reply4: Paul is obviously not teaching Christ is an
>>attribute. This is evident by verse 30. Christ has "become
>>to us Wisdom". How did he become Wisdom to them? By
>>personifying the attribute, teaching them.
>
>Respnse: That is crap, he became wisdom to us by teaching us
>about salvationm, since that is what the verse is talking
>about.
>

Reply5: Which is EXACTLY my point. If Christ was the attribute of Wisdom, he could not have become Wisdom to us, he would have simply been.

> We further know
>>he is not the attribute from Col 2:3, where wisdom (the
>>attribute is in him). It makes no sense to say he is in
>>himself. Obviously the attribute vs. the personification.
>
>Response: knowldge is attributed to him there as well, are
>you now saying that knowledge is being personified as well?
>And actually he is refuting proto gnosticm which boasted of
>having secret knowledge, that is why Paul is saying Christ
>is all wisdom and he is the fullness of diety in bodily
>form, because the body was viewed as bad.

Reply: You missed my point completely. Him having the attributes shows that he is not the attribute.

>>
>>>Reply4: This has been my position from the beginning. Let
>>me break it down for you.
>>
>>Christ is the personifier of Wisdom.
>>When "Wisdom" is speaking, because an attribute cannot
>>speak, the personifier is doing it.
>>Christ is the personifier because all the treasures of
>>wisdom dwell in him, but because of this, we also know that
>>he is not the attribute.
>
>Response: All treasuer and wisdom have nothing to do with
>Proverbs, Paul does not call him an attribute but wisdom
>himself, he became wisdom of salvation for our sakes, again
>having nothing to do with proverbs 8. This is acutally
>quite simple

Reply5: Missed it again. I'm using these points to demonstrate that he is not the attribute, but that the attribute is personified in him.

>>>Reply4: Scripture is Col 2:3 and 1 Cor 1:30 that
>>demonstrate Christ is not the attribute.
>
>Response: Boy context means nothing to you does it, you just
>spit out verses as long as they got the same word in it.

Reply5: Context is everything. You're just not getting my point... or you are intentially misrepresenting me, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

>>
>>Reply4: Nope, Paul does not argue that Christ is the
>>attribute. This is nothing more than your assumption.
>>Verse 30 does not allow for it to be the attribute, for
>>Christ cannot become an attribute.
>
>Response: No he is talknig about salvation, oh nevermind you
>aer not interested in context.

Reply5: AND SO THIS MEANS CHRIST IS NOT THE ATTRIBUTE.

>>>Reply4: LOL. You are confused. The context of the
>>statement was regarding cases where the feminine noun is
>>applied to a male, such as congregator to Solomon. It has
>>no bearing when there is a masculine and feminine form of
>>the SAME word. See, again you are ASSUMING Wisdom is a
>>female. This is entirely your assumption.
>
>Response: Well that is because I realize that when you
>personify something you make it a person. Since abstract
>nouns can be different than there referent Solomon could
>have been talking about a male all along. And used *he*

Reply5: That is just it, NO HE COULDN'T, because the NOUN FOR WISDOM IS FEMININE, THUS REQUIRING IT TO BE FEMININE, NO MATTER WHAT THE GENDER OF THE PERSONIFIER IS.

>>
>>>>>Reply4: AMONAH is the feminine form of AMON, which, if the
>>referent is feminine, is the form that is used. The quote
>>was in reference to places where there is not a form that
>>matches the gender of the referent.
>
>Respnse: So therefore wisdom could have been a he.

Reply5: And it is NATURALLY A HE, but GRAMMATICALLY A SHE.

>>>
>>Reply4: The writings of the prophets are what consistuted
>>the beginning of the gospel.
>
>Response: The thing written in the prophets was the
>prediction of JOhn the baptist coming, not lining up the
>gospel with the prophets. At least that is what Mark says.

Reply5: What writing of the prophets is attributed as being the beginning of the gospel about Jesus? It was about John... And when Mark writes his gospel, how does he begin? He talks about John... Everything started with John...

>
>>Reply4: READ WHAT I AM WRITING. The beginning of the
>>gospel = what is written in the prophets. That is what is
>>being argued.
>
>Response: That is not what Mark says, he is talkng about
>John's coming, not equating them with the prophets.

Reply5: Let me further clarify. What is written in the prophets = John. That is what they are writing about. John is the one who started it. He was born first.. he began his ministry first, ect.. and he baptized Jesus. So John's work was the beginning of the gospel of Christ.

>>
>>>Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.
>>
>>Reply4: I'm done? LOL. I've lost track of how many points
>>you've either conceded or just stopped replying to me about.
>
>Response: Yep you are doine and I am tired, when I conceded
>either you had a good point, or I double checked with my
>professor and changed my mind, and if I stopped replying it
>is because there three hundred post on here, and I, by
>myself cannot get to them all, trust me I am tired. If you
>have not noticed I replyed to everyone on here, alone. So
>if you really want to keep discussing or want to keep in
>contact I am ont leavnig the site totally, so you can hook
>up with me later or I can inbox me. But three hundred post
>is a little much, I'd like it to be more casual.

Reply5: Funny, because I keep finding more and more evidence for my position has we go. It just keeps stacking up. You deny things, but that is the best you seem to have.. and you bounce around, ect, ect. Be done. Doesn't matter to me. I've made my point, and there are tons of points I've made that you simply have failed to answer or do not understand sufficiently (gender in Hebrew) to answer, but try nevertheless.

-Tony

Osoclasi,

You wrote the following two bits:

>
>Response: Actually she is like an architech.
>>
>
>Response: NOt if she is being compared.
>>

From this, I'm thinking you might be trying to argue that Wisdom is only similar to AMON or somehow compared to AMON. This is incorrect. The text says ah-MON not Ke-ah-MON which would be translated "as a craftsman". Indeed Wisdom is assigned the NATURAL gender of a male, for the writer specifically used the masculine form instead of the feminine.

Regards,
Tony

>Osoclasi,
>
>You wrote the following two bits:
>>>
>
>From this, I'm thinking you might be trying to argue that
>Wisdom is only similar to AMON or somehow compared to AMON.
>This is incorrect. The text says ah-MON not Ke-ah-MON which
>would be translated "as a craftsman". Indeed Wisdom is
>assigned the NATURAL gender of a male, for the writer

Response: Well as you know the ke is not always present in Hebrew whem making comparisons. And secondly, it says va'eheyah etzelu amon. I was by his side an architech, or I was by his side as an architech. But it does not say that wisdom's name is architech, so therefore it is describing the work that she is doing, she is an architech. But it does not mean that she is male. Now if wisdom were changed to *the architech* and that was it's name, I'd understand.
>specifically used the masculine form instead of the
>feminine.
>
>Regards,
>Tony

Missed it again. It uses the masculine AMON instead of the feminine AMONAH. Solomon had the choice, he used the masculine. If the NATURAL gender of Wisdom here was feminine, AMONAH would NATURALLY be used.

-Tony

>Missed it again. It uses the masculine AMON instead of the
>feminine AMONAH. Solomon had the choice, he used the
>masculine. If the NATURAL gender of Wisdom here was
>feminine, AMONAH would NATURALLY be used.
>

Response: Amon there is not being used as a name, but rather as a desciption of what wisdom is doing, it does not matter what gender it is in.

You think Solomon was so terribly sloppy to go hopping around in gender for no apparent reason? AMON is obviously used for a reason. CHOKMAH is simply refered to as a female because of gramamtical reasons, but OBVIOUSLY, Solomon saw a chance to insert the masculine here and took it. You are in such denial at this point that it is just sad.

-Tony

>You think Solomon was so terribly sloppy to go hopping
>around in gender for no apparent reason?

Response: Yeah I think you are simply reading into the text, because Wisdom is desribed as a she the entire 9 chapters, unless you want to say that she all of a suddened changed.

AMON is obviously
>used for a reason. CHOKMAH is simply refered to as a female
>because of gramamtical reasons, but OBVIOUSLY, Solomon saw a
>chance to insert the masculine here and took it. You are in
>such denial at this point that it is just sad.

Response: Chokmah is refered to as a she because wisdom is being *personified* hello, knock, knock.

Not for grammatical reasons alone. But hey your idea almost worked. :)

>>You think Solomon was so terribly sloppy to go hopping
>>around in gender for no apparent reason?
>
>Response: Yeah I think you are simply reading into the text,
>because Wisdom is desribed as a she the entire 9 chapters,
>unless you want to say that she all of a suddened changed.
>
>AMON is obviously
>>used for a reason. CHOKMAH is simply refered to as a female
>>because of gramamtical reasons, but OBVIOUSLY, Solomon saw a
>>chance to insert the masculine here and took it. You are in
>>such denial at this point that it is just sad.
>
>Response: Chokmah is refered to as a she because wisdom is
>being *personified* hello, knock, knock.
>
>Not for grammatical reasons alone. But hey your idea almost
>worked. :)

Since you clearly don't understand basic translation concepts, I'm going to make this really simple. Why is wisdom called a she?

-Tony

>
>Since you clearly don't understand basic translation
>concepts, I'm going to make this really simple. Why is
>wisdom called a she?
>

Response: Genre, it's called personification. It goes beyond simply saying that it is an antecedent. Because Solomon has made wisdom personal.

Wisdom is feminine because CHOKMAH is a feminine noun. The gender of the noun is feminine and so it DEMANDS a feminine pronoun.

-Tony

>Wisdom is feminine because CHOKMAH is a feminine noun. The
>gender of the noun is feminine and so it DEMANDS a feminine
>pronoun.
>

Respnose: Wisdom is being personified, so since there are no neuters and we are being genre sensitive, Solomon is reall presentign wisdom as a women. Not Christ. THe way you are intrepreting this passage is really forced.

It is the gender of the language! It has NOTHING to do with Solomon.

-Tony

>It is the gender of the language! It has NOTHING to do with
>Solomon.
>
Response: This is what I think your professor left out, but I will be responsible and talk to my professor on thursday.

He is not giving any attention to hte type of writting it is.

Wisdom in Hebrew is only feminine, so it can only be written with feminine pronouns. You could not write Wisdom as masculine if you wanted to, because that would violate the rules of grammar. That is where the masculine AMON comes into the picture.

And he isn't my professor.. ;)

-Tony

>Wisdom in Hebrew is only feminine, so it can only be written
>with feminine pronouns. You could not write Wisdom as
>masculine if you wanted to, because that would violate the
>rules of grammar. That is where the masculine AMON comes
>into the picture.

Response: Well if your friend is correct, you are still a long way off from proving it was Christ, but before I agree I will double check first.

I'm not saying that this proves it is Christ, but what it does is prove that the natural gender is masculine, which goes a long way in demonstrating that Wisdom here personified actually has someone masculine doing the personification, and if that isn't Christ, I'm curious who it is.

-Tony

Solomon chose the masculine form.. If wisdom is naturally a female, why did he not use the feminine form? Why won't you answer my question?

-Tony

>Solomon chose the masculine form.. If wisdom is naturally a
>female, why did he not use the feminine form? Why won't you
>answer my question?
>

Response: He is describing what she is doing, ( she was besides God as a masterworkman) gender does not matter. The most you could get out of this is saying that the work she was doing is masculine.

Pretty simple when you are just dealing with the text inside of its genre.

Because there is a feminine form which is AMONAH. He used AMON instead of AMONAH. Same word, different gender.

-Tony

>Because there is a feminine form which is AMONAH. He used
>AMON instead of AMONAH. Same word, different gender.
>

Respnse: so she is describing herself (because she is really not called anything) as an architech, that's all nothing more nothing less.

nt

I talked to a friend of mine who teaches Hebrew out in California. I knew your position was incorrect, but I wanted to get his thoughts on this. After quoting you to him, he said the following:


"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine and require additional data to narrow the gender to one. Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.

"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your correspondent, is not happy with the answer."


So that about sums it up. He has taught Hebrew for 10 years now, knows the langauge way better than either of us do, and so... 'nuff said.

Regards,
Tony

with my Herbew professor on Thursday, I would see him on monday but it is memorial day , and I don't go to see again till then.

He is also my Greek professor.

nt

Osoclasi,

I'm going to demonstrate my point to you. Before I do that though, I need you to translate this for me (I want you to do it so you can see what I mean).

hH SOFIA WKODOMHSEN hEAUTH OIKON

After doing this, we can continue.

Thanks,
Tony

>Osoclasi,
>
>I'm going to demonstrate my point to you. Before I do that
>though, I need you to translate this for me (I want you to
>do it so you can see what I mean).
>
>hH SOFIA WKODOMHSEN hEAUTH OIKON
>
>After doing this, we can continue.

Response: You need to transliterate a little better, all I can make out is wisdom built and house, the small *h* verses the big *H* is weird it looks like Matt 7:24 but transliterated wrong

what on earth is hH is that suppose to be hen?

I am transliterating based on the standard B-Greek transliteration scheme. hH is the nominative feminine article.

-Tony

>I am transliterating based on the standard B-Greek
>transliteration scheme. hH is the nominative feminine
>article.
>

Respnse: never heard of a standard b scheme before, I don't have the verse in front of me but if I remember it was wisdom built a house or something like that.

Ok, I'm glad we've established that. I actually wasn't trying to test that, but it has become obvious now.

hH SOFIA WKODOMHSEN hEAUTH OIKON
wisdom has built for herself a home

The question I was going to ask you was why hEAUTH is a feminine pronoun? The answer is because the feminine noun demands a feminine pronoun. This is grammatical gender. There is no person identified for who wisdom is in this single verse, so we translate based on the gender of the noun, not the natural gender.

My point? It has no bearing on the physical gender of the person and therefore your argument based on wisdom being a woman is in error.

Thanks,
Tony

that makes it hard to read.

If you can read it in Greek characters, it is easier to read it this way, because this is the closest possible english character -> Greek character. For example, if you wrote in a Greek font on the computer, the characters I use would be the appropriate ones for the corresponding one in the Greek font.

-Tony

>If you can read it in Greek characters, it is easier to read
>it this way, because this is the closest possible english
>character -> Greek character. For example, if you wrote in
>a Greek font on the computer, the characters I use would be
>the appropriate ones for the corresponding one in the Greek
>font.
>
Response: First of all there is no hH on my computer, and you had all sorts of weird looking stuff going on there.

I would have typed it like this...
he sofia hokosomesen heaute oikon but that is ok it really does not matter.

Go to the B-Greek discussion group.. see how people who KNOW Greek do it.

-Tony

wrong spot..

>For the Holy Spirit we have Acts 5:3-4, where lying to the
>Holy Spirit is equavalent to lying to God.
>
>Acts 5:3
>But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to
>lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of
>the land?
>
>Acts 5:4
>"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And
>after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it
>that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have
>not lied to men but to God."

Yes Ananias "lied" or "played false" to the holy spirit, and that was just like lying to God. SO WHAT? Is that supposed to be a point? If you call my ANSWERING MACHINE, and leave a message that is an outright lie, you didn't speak to ME, you spoke to my ANSWERING MACHINE. But it's just like you lied to ME because I will get the false message that you left. Agreed? But that in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM means that ME and the ANSWERING MACHINE ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!! Acts 5:3,4 is a NON-FACTOR in this discussion.

But since you brought up the holy spirit, let's talk about it. Since you have studied Greek, then you know that the word translated "spirit" from the Greek is "pneu'ma", and it is derived from the Greek word "pne'o", meaning "breathe or blow". (It is the etymological ancestor of the word "pneumonia") It's Hebrew counterpart is "ru'ach". Both of these words basically mean "breath". They can also mean "vital force, wind, active force, or HOLY SPIRIT". All of these meanings have something in common: They all refer to something to which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

So the question is, "Does the Bible teach that the holy spirit is a person? While Jesus did refer to the holy spirit as a "helper"(Greek:"para'kletos") or "comforter", that doesn't mean that it is a "person". In a bunch of places the Bible says that people were "filled", "baptized", or "anointed" with holy spirit. (Luke 1:41; Matthew 3:11; Acts 10:38) These references DON'T FIT A PERSON. When the holy spirit is personified it is only a figure of speech. The Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, blood, etc. Not ONE PERSON says that "sin" is a person, or that "water" is a person, or that the quality of "wisdom" is a person...but trinitarians take a verse where holy spirit is personified and run with it IN YET ANOTHER OBVIOUS PLOY TO PROVE THIS PAGAN DOCTRINE.

The Bible tells us the PERSONAL name of God, and it tells us the PERSONAL name of God's Son. But ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE DOES THE BIBLE GIVE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSONAL NAME. If holy spirit is such an important "person" in the trinity, why is it not named? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PERSON.

Another point that comes to mind is at Acts 7:55,56, here Stephen saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." WHY DIDN'T MENTION SEEING THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia ADMITS: "The majority of New Testament texts reveal God's spirit as SOMETHING, NOT SOMEONE; this is especially seen in the PARALLELISM between the SPIRIT and the POWER of God."

I could go on, but I think I've proven that holy spirit is not a person.

Excellent response. Hetep.

>But since you brought up the holy spirit, let's talk about
>it. Since you have studied Greek, then you know that the
>word translated "spirit" from the Greek is "pneu'ma", and it
>is derived from the Greek word "pne'o", meaning "breathe or
>blow". (It is the etymological ancestor of the word
>"pneumonia") It's Hebrew counterpart is "ru'ach". Both of
>these words basically mean "breath". They can also mean
>"vital force, wind, active force, or HOLY SPIRIT". All of
>these meanings have something in common: They all refer to
>something to which is invisible to human sight and which
>gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is
>capable of producing visible effects.

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

how many times did Jesus also use the words for himself Son of Man. its almost, what 50 times?

>Yes Ananias "lied" or "played false" to the holy spirit, and
>that was just like lying to God. SO WHAT?

Response: Because to the Holy Spirit is not *Like* lying to God it is lying to God. You added *like* to the passage, it is not there.

Is that supposed
>to be a point? If you call my ANSWERING MACHINE, and leave
>a message that is an outright lie, you didn't speak to ME,
>you spoke to my ANSWERING MACHINE. But it's just like you
>lied to ME because I will get the false message that you
>left. Agreed? But that in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM means
>that ME and the ANSWERING MACHINE ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!!
>Acts 5:3,4 is a NON-FACTOR in this discussion.

Response; To bad they did not have answering machines back then, and you don't lie to an answering maching, since the message is intended for you, you can lie on an answering maching, but the lie is directed towards you. So this verse is a huge factor to this discussion.
>
>So the question is, "Does the Bible teach that the holy
>spirit is a person?

Response: Absolutely, for Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf, forces do not intercede.

Romans 8:26
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;


While Jesus did refer to the holy
>spirit as a "helper"(Greek:"para'kletos") or "comforter",
>that doesn't mean that it is a "person". In a bunch of
>places the Bible says that people were "filled", "baptized",
>or "anointed" with holy spirit. (Luke 1:41; Matthew 3:11;
>Acts 10:38) These references DON'T FIT A PERSON. When the
>holy spirit is personified it is only a figure of speech.

Response: Again, Spirits do not intercede nor are they grieved, nor do they groan with expression to deep for words.

Ephesians 4:30
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

>The Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, blood,
>etc. Not ONE PERSON says that "sin" is a person, or that
>"water" is a person, or that the quality of "wisdom" is a
>person...but trinitarians take a verse where holy spirit is
>personified and run with it IN YET ANOTHER OBVIOUS PLOY TO
>PROVE THIS PAGAN DOCTRINE.

Response: Not at all, because non of those things you listed intercede and know teh thoughts of God.
>
>The Bible tells us the PERSONAL name of God, and it tells us
>the PERSONAL name of God's Son. But ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE DOES
>THE BIBLE GIVE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSONAL NAME. If holy spirit
>is such an important "person" in the trinity, why is it not
>named? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PERSON.

Response: Holy Spirit is a name, so is advocate or helper.
>
>Another point that comes to mind is at Acts 7:55,56, here
>Stephen saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." WHY
>DIDN'T MENTION SEEING THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Response: Because the Holy Spirit was empowering him to see the Father and Son.
>

>from Vishnu, Brahma, and can't think of the other gods name,
Siva (or Shiva)

>Or my favorite, is that in 325 A.D. the catholic church along >with Constantine (who was not a Theologian and could care less)
No Constantine wasn't a theologian, but as emporer he had influence in the Church, and he desperately wanted unity in his realm. He knew there was a division among the Greek speaking bishops and the Latin speaking bishops as to the realtionship of the Son to the Father. In 325 he called for the council of bishops at Nicea, which was in the Greek speaking part of the empire. Somewhere between 350 and 318 bishops showed up, which was only a minority of the bishops, and the majority of them were from the Greek speaking region, so the council was biased. After fierce debates, the Nicene Creed came out with a HEAVY bias toward Trinitarian thought. Debate continued to rage on for decades, more councils were called, more emporers got involved, and eventually banishment was used to force conformity. (Can you believe that? Believe in the Trinity, or you are banished from the empire...WOW.)

>(Even though there are first and
>second century Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis who
>believed in the Deity of Christ).

And I can name a bunch who knew and understood that Jesus was not God:
Justin Martyr said that Jesus was "other than the God who made all things", and that Jesus "never did anything except what the Creator willed him to do."

Iranaeus said that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God".

Clement of Alexandria said that the Son "is next to the ONLY omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian taught "The Father is different from the Son, as he is GREATER; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said "There was a time when the Son was not...Before all things, God was alone."

In the book "The Church of the First Three Centuries", historian Adam Lamson wrote "that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ, It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and...holy spirit, but NOT AS CO-EQUAL, NOT AS ONE NUMERICAL ESSENCE, NOT AS THREE IN ONE, IN ANY SENSE NOW ADMITTED BY TRINITARIANS. The VERY REVERSE is the fact.

>And finally, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible
I don't use this argument, but I do find it odd that the IDEA of the Trinity ISN'T EVEN IN THE BIBLE!! Not in the Old Testament or the New:

"The Encyclopedia of Religion" ADMITS:Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Edmund Fortman ADMITS in his book "The Triune God" the following: "The Old Testament...tells us nothing EXPLICITLY or by necessary IMPLICATION of a Triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SACRED WRITER EVEN SUSPECTED THE EXISTENCE OF A TRINITY WITHIN THE GODHEAD...Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, IS TO GO BEYOND THE WORDS AND INTENT OF THE SACRED WRITERS."

Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY WAS APPARENTLY UNKNOWN...THEY SPEAK NOTHING ABOUT IT".

In the book "The Paganism in Our Christianity"(WHAT A TITLE!!!) Religious Historian Arthur Weigall, speaking of the trinity doctrine notes "Jesus Christ NEVER MENTIONED SUCH A PHENOMENON...The idea was ONLY adopted by the church THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the death of our Lord."(hmmm, right about the time of the Nicea...)
You mean to tell me, out of 66 books of the Bible NOT ONE CLEARLY EXPLAINS THE TRINITY?!?! GET OUTTA HERE WITH THAT TRICKNOWLEDGY.

>The problem is that many people do not fully understand what
>the trinity is saying, nor understand how to defend it.
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT, INCLUDING TRINITARIANS CLERGYMEN!!! For instance:
"A Dictinary of Religious Knowledge" reads: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

Cardinal John O'Connor states "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand."

And Pope John Paul II calls it "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity"(THE POPE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY!!! THE POPE!!!)

I don't woship a "mystery god". Sounds like a bunch of ADMITTED CONFUSION TO ME. And 1 Corinthians 14:33 says "God is NOT a God of confusion".


>hopefully, when I am finished explaining what it really
>means there will be no confusion.
I doubt it...I doubt it VERY SERIOUSLY. TRINITARIAN CLERGYMEN AND SCHOLARS (who can't even agree on the doctrine themselves) have been trying to explain it for almost 1700 years, and haven't been able to do so adequately, but you think you are gonna do it in a few minutes on okayplayer.com? RIIIIGHT....

>No Constantine wasn't a theologian, but as emporer he had
>influence in the Church, and he desperately wanted unity in
>his realm. He knew there was a division among the Greek
>speaking bishops and the Latin speaking bishops as to the
>realtionship of the Son to the Father. In 325 he called for
>the council of bishops at Nicea, which was in the Greek
>speaking part of the empire. Somewhere between 350 and 318
>bishops showed up, which was only a minority of the bishops,
>and the majority of them were from the Greek speaking
>region, so the council was biased. After fierce debates,
>the Nicene Creed came out with a HEAVY bias toward
>Trinitarian thought. Debate continued to rage on for
>decades, more councils were called, more emporers got
>involved, and eventually banishment was used to force
>conformity. (Can you believe that? Believe in the Trinity,
>or you are banished from the empire...WOW.)

Response: Uh you forgot the part of how athanasius was also banned and cornered at his house by non trinitarians and had to sneek out of the back in order to save his own life. And you also forgot to mention that the reason for the council being so late was becuase of church persecution, if members of the church were to gather together in one spot, they would be in a world of trouble.

>
>And I can name a bunch who knew and understood that Jesus
>was not God:
>Justin Martyr said that Jesus was "other than the God who
>made all things", and that Jesus "never did anything except
>what the Creator willed him to do."

Response: And there are others who believed such as Ignatius. By the way I notice that non of your qoutes have page numbers of books that one could go and research this for themselves. I can show you my source for church fathers.
>
>>And finally, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible
>I don't use this argument, but I do find it odd that the
>IDEA of the Trinity ISN'T EVEN IN THE BIBLE!! Not in the
>Old Testament or the New:

Response: Actually the word Jehovah is not in the Bible either, but that never stopped you guys.

>I doubt it...I doubt it VERY SERIOUSLY. TRINITARIAN
>CLERGYMEN AND SCHOLARS (who can't even agree on the doctrine
>themselves) have been trying to explain it for almost 1700
>years, and haven't been able to do so adequately, but you
>think you are gonna do it in a few minutes on
>okayplayer.com? RIIIIGHT....

Response: Well I have explained it pretty well so far, any questions?

>Response: Uh you forgot the part of how athanasius was also
>banned and cornered at his house by non trinitarians and had
>to sneek out of the back in order to save his own life. And
>you also forgot to mention that the reason for the council
>being so late was becuase of church persecution, if members
>of the church were to gather together in one spot, they
>would be in a world of trouble.
Point being? So he got chased out of his house...so what? If I, not believing in the trinity, chased you, a trinitarian, out of your house, does that mean your belief is true? NOPE. And church persecution, hindering some from attending really doesn't matter either. The fact of the matter is ALL OF THE ATTENDEES DID NOT AGREE ON THE TRINITARIAN HEAVY BIAS THAT CAME OUT OF IT. But through POLITICAL THREATS, the PAGAN FOUNDATION WAS LAID. Both of these are non-points.

>By the way I notice that non of your qoutes have
>page numbers of books that one could go and research this
>for themselves. I can show you my source for church
>fathers.
I know you aren't implying that I made up the sources...is that what you are doing? I named the authors and the books, if any one thinks I'm lying, read these books and TELL ME I MADE THEM UP...I GUARANTEE NO ONE CAN. Now you are REACHING.

>Response: Actually the word Jehovah is not in the Bible
>either, but that never stopped you guys.
Now you are REALLY REACHING. If you wanna get down like that, the name "Jesus" isn't in there either. You want me to thouroughly explain why I use the name "Jehovah"? Because it is the best known ENGLISH pronunciation of the divine name, AND I SPEAK ENGLISH.(And yes, I know "Yahweh" is favored by many Hebrew scholars.) The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of 4 consonants called the Tetragrammaton, these four letters are generally transliterated into English as YHWH or JHVH. All of the Hebrew letters are unknown, and vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millenium C.E. On top of that, because of superstition, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts doesn't provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name. So THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: Because NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE how the divine name was EXACTLY pronounced in ancient Hebrew, there is NO REASON I should stop saying "Jehovah" which is ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH. If I was gonna stop saying "Jehovah", to be consistent, I wouldn't say "Jeremiah" AS ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH, I would say "Yirmeyah"; I wouldn't say "Isaiah", AS ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH, I would say "Yesha'ya'hu";AND (here comes the clincher here...)I WOULDN'T SAY "JESUS" AS ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH, I WOULD SAY "YEHOH SHU'A'"(as in Hebrew) or "I E SOUS'"(as in Greek). So LOGICALLY, you can't have a problem with the use of the name "Jehovah", because it is an ACCEPTED pronunciation of the divine name in English...If you have a problem with the the use of "Jehovah", that means you have a problem with the name "Jesus", which you OBVIOUSLY DON'T. See what I mean by selective rule application? GET OUTTA HERE WITH THAT BULL.

>Response: Well I have explained it pretty well so far, any
>questions?
No you haven't, and no I don't have any questions, because I knew you couldn't explain it. Go explain it to the Pope, since he says it's an "inscrutable mystery."

>Point being? So he got chased out of his house...so what?

Response: You were making it seem that only the non trinitarians ever suffered persection, that is not true.


>If I, not believing in the trinity, chased you, a
>trinitarian, out of your house, does that mean your belief
>is true? NOPE. And church persecution, hindering some from
>attending really doesn't matter either. The fact of the
>matter is ALL OF THE ATTENDEES DID NOT AGREE ON THE
>TRINITARIAN HEAVY BIAS THAT CAME OUT OF IT. But through
>POLITICAL THREATS, the PAGAN FOUNDATION WAS LAID. Both of
>these are non-points.

Response: No you miss read me, I was saying that church persecution was the reason that the council took place in 325 A.D. as opposed to the first century. And futhermore, I think that Athanasus won the debate, he argued skillfully against Arius and Arius had no rebuttal. The trinity is no where near pagan, it is biblical and I for one am glad God chose to reveal his nature to us.

>I know you aren't implying that I made up the sources...is
>that what you are doing? I named the authors and the books,
>if any one thinks I'm lying, read these books and TELL ME I
>MADE THEM UP...I GUARANTEE NO ONE CAN. Now you are
>REACHING.

Response: No I am not reaching, it is just that Jehovah Witnesses's are notorious for not giving out there sources. For example in your NWT, it does not tell you who translated it, and I know they wanted to be humble, (wink, wink). But I don't buy that arguement at all.

>Now you are REALLY REACHING. If you wanna get down like
>that, the name "Jesus" isn't in there either.

Response; Ok then, find me the name Jehovah in the Greek NT then. You showed me YHWH in the OT, but what about Jehovah in the NT? Find me the translation there.

>No you haven't, and no I don't have any questions, because I
>knew you couldn't explain it. Go explain it to the Pope,
>since he says it's an "inscrutable mystery."

Response: I am not catholic, so why would i try to defend the pope? Personally I don't think the pope is that great of a theologian. I am sure he is smart, but popes have said some pretty wild stuff within church history. I'd stick with the scriptures.

>Response: No I am not reaching, it is just that Jehovah
>Witnesses's are notorious for not giving out there sources.
>For example in your NWT, it does not tell you who translated
>it, and I know they wanted to be humble, (wink, wink). But
>I don't buy that arguement at all.
No Witnesses are not "notorious" for "not giving out" sources. I have just given A BANG OF SOURCES, and all you can say is "uuhhh, yeah, uuuhh, but uuhhh, where are the PAGE NUMBERS?!!?? Once again, get outta here with that BULL. And you can "wink wink all you want to about the those who translated the NWT wanting to be humble, but the bottom line is this, why wouldn't someone want the credit for all the time, trouble and effort put forth in translating the Bible? I'll tell you why, because none of them want to say "HEY! Look what I did!" It doesn't matter, because they are not seeking prominence...they only want to honor the Divine Author. They do however tell what the basis for translation is: For the Hebrew Scriptures they used Rudolf Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica", editions of 1951-1955; "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia" of 1977, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other numerous translations into other languages. As far as the Christian Greek Scriptures go, primarily they used the master Greek Text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort, but they also used other master texts. And by the way, there is no "argument to buy"...but if YOU do or don't "buy it", I really don't think anybody cares. Oh, one more point, other translation committees have taken a similar view, for example, the jacket of the Reference Edition(1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholars names for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on it's own merits".

>Response; Ok then, find me the name Jehovah in the Greek NT
>then. You showed me YHWH in the OT, but what about Jehovah
>in the NT? Find me the translation there.
***sigh***
So basically you are admitting the usage of YHWH in the OT, but now you want me to prove it to you in the NT...okay, but before I do, let me ask you a question...why would it matter? If the OT writers(as you just admitted) used YHWH, do you think God told the inspired writers of the NT, "Okay, y'all STOP USING MY NAME NOW, I know your OT counterparts used it, but I don't want y'all to...Since Greek is the accepted language ever since the Greeks and Romans started running things I'm going to change my name from YHWH to something else" What kind of sense would that make? NONE WHATSOEVER. But anyway, HERE IS YOUR PROOF: In the "Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote the following: "We know FOR A FACT that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write YHWH within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most UNLIKELY that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words "God" and "Lord", it would have been EXTREMELY UNUSUAL for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself...Since the Tetragram was still written in the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text...But WHEN IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT, it was also REMOVED from the QUOTATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates (substitutes) must have crowded out the Tetragram in BOTH TESTAMENTS."--Volume 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp.76,77

Also, commenting on the fact that the OLDEST fragments of the the Greek do contain the divine name in the form "YHWH", Dr. P. Kahle wrote: "We now know that that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written...did not translate the Divine name by kyrios,(Greek for "Lord") but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such manuscripts."--"The Cairo Geniza", Oxford, 1959, p.222

If you notice in the 2 references used above, I provided some NICE, JUICY PAGE NUMBERS FOR YOU. As far as actual scriptural references, there are many translations of the Greek Scriptures(NT) that have included the name "Jehovah" or "YHWH". I would be happy to name a few:

Matthew 21:9--"The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" translated by John Eliot, 1661

Mark 12:29,30--"A Literal Translation of the New Testament, From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript", translated by Herman Heinfetter, 1863

Ephesians 5:17--"Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi", translated by Elias Hutter, 1599

Romans 15:11--"Samtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments", translated by Johann Jakob Stolz, 1781-1782

What you need to seriously ask is why someone would want the Divine name OUT OF THE BIBLE...you can barely find it in translations of the OT these days. You have already admitted that I showed you YHWH in the OT...so why are people TAKING IT OUT and just using the titles "God" or "Lord"??? Could it be that they DON'T WANT THE DIVINE NAME KNOWN???

a few points for discussion.

YHWH was indeed the name used in the OT. i cant believe anyone, but esp a christian would be denying that....

The street vernacular of Jesus' time and area was Aramaic. the Aramaic Bible Society affirms that jesus said "GOD" and not "the Lord", and used the Aramaic "Alah".

you can find this in Hebrew Book of Daniel. 2:42 uses "Alah/Elah.'" While the rest of the Book of Daniel is in Hebrew, chapter 2:4b through chapter 7 are in aramaic.

in hebrew this was Eloah.

RE: JEHOVAH

there is no J in Hebrew or Aramaic. Jehovah comes from the improper transliteration of YHWH by German translatorsof the bible. when diacritical marks to the Tanakh the vowel markings for the name "Adonai" (אָדוֹן) meaning "Lord" were imposed on the letters YHWH (יהוה), in an effort to prevent someone from reading the Torah and accidentally reciting the correct pronunciation of YHWH. since German does not have a Y, they transliterated "YHWH" as "Jehovah." They also did not know that when a vav (ו) procedes a Hay (ה) in this manner, the vav acts as a long vowel.


>So basically you are admitting the usage of YHWH in the OT,
>but now you want me to prove it to you in the NT...okay, but
>before I do, let me ask you a question...why would it
>matter? If the OT writers(as you just admitted) used YHWH,
>do you think God told the inspired writers of the NT, "Okay,
>y'all STOP USING MY NAME NOW, I know your OT counterparts
>used it, but I don't want y'all to...Since Greek is the
>accepted language ever since the Greeks and Romans started
>running things I'm going to change my name from YHWH to
>something else" What kind of sense would that make? NONE
>WHATSOEVER. But anyway, HERE IS YOUR PROOF: In the "Journal
>of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of
>Georgia wrote the following: "We know FOR A FACT that
>Greek-speaking Jews continued to write YHWH within their
>Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most UNLIKELY that early
>conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from
>this practice. Although in secondary references to God they
>probably used the words "God" and "Lord", it would have been
>EXTREMELY UNUSUAL for them to have dismissed the Tetragram
>from the biblical text itself...Since the Tetragram was
>still written in the Greek Bible which made up the
>Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe
>that the New Testament writers, when quoting from Scripture,
>preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text...But WHEN
>IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT, it was also
>REMOVED from the QUOTATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
>TESTAMENT. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the
>second century the use of surrogates (substitutes) must have
>crowded out the Tetragram in BOTH TESTAMENTS."--Volume 96,
>No. 1, March 1977, pp.76,77
>
>Also, commenting on the fact that the OLDEST fragments of
>the the Greek do contain the divine name in the form "YHWH",
> Dr. P. Kahle wrote: "We now know that that the Greek Bible
>text as far as it was written...did not translate the Divine
>name by kyrios,(Greek for "Lord") but the Tetragrammaton
>written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such
>manuscripts."--"The Cairo Geniza", Oxford, 1959, p.222
>
>If you notice in the 2 references used above, I provided
>some NICE, JUICY PAGE NUMBERS FOR YOU. As far as actual
>scriptural references, there are many translations of the
>Greek Scriptures(NT) that have included the name "Jehovah"
>or "YHWH". I would be happy to name a few:
>
>Matthew 21:9--"The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour
>Jesus Christ" translated by John Eliot, 1661
>
>Mark 12:29,30--"A Literal Translation of the New Testament,
>From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript", translated by
>Herman Heinfetter, 1863
>
>Ephesians 5:17--"Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu
>Christi", translated by Elias Hutter, 1599
>
>Romans 15:11--"Samtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments",
>translated by Johann Jakob Stolz, 1781-1782
>
>What you need to seriously ask is why someone would want the
>Divine name OUT OF THE BIBLE...you can barely find it in
>translations of the OT these days. You have already
>admitted that I showed you YHWH in the OT...so why are
>people TAKING IT OUT and just using the titles "God" or
>"Lord"??? Could it be that they DON'T WANT THE DIVINE NAME
>KNOWN???

>No Witnesses are not "notorious" for "not giving out"
>sources.

Response: You must not have been a witness for long.

I have just given A BANG OF SOURCES, and all you
>can say is "uuhhh, yeah, uuuhh, but uuhhh, where are the
>PAGE NUMBERS?!!?? Once again, get outta here with that
>BULL.

Response: Actually I asked for the Bible translators of NWT.

And you can "wink wink all you want to about the
>those who translated the NWT wanting to be humble, but the
>bottom line is this, why wouldn't someone want the credit
>for all the time, trouble and effort put forth in
>translating the Bible?

Response: Yeah that is what I thought, it is being responsible. It let's the people reading it know for sure the creditials of the translators. You would not let a doctor work on you without knowing that he had passed medical school.

I'll tell you why, because none of
>them want to say "HEY! Look what I did!" It doesn't
>matter, because they are not seeking prominence...they only
>want to honor the Divine Author.

Response: Nonsense, they did not want to get caught that is all. And I am sure you have seen those arguements about Fred Franz and the rest being put on trial and stuff for not being able to read Greek and Hebrew, how do you refute those if you don't even know who translated it?

They do however tell what
>the basis for translation is: For the Hebrew Scriptures they
>used Rudolf Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica", editions of
>1951-1955; "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia" of 1977, the
>Dead Sea Scrolls and other numerous translations into other
>languages. As far as the Christian Greek Scriptures go,
>primarily they used the master Greek Text of 1881 as
>prepared by Westcott and Hort, but they also used other
>master texts. And by the way, there is no "argument to
>buy"...but if YOU do or don't "buy it", I really don't think
>anybody cares.

Response: You obviously bothers you, since you called it a SLANDEROUS LIE. gasp.

Oh, one more point, other translation
>committees have taken a similar view, for example, the
>jacket of the Reference Edition(1971) of the New American
>Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholars names
>for reference or recommendations because it is our belief
>God's Word should stand on it's own merits".

Response: That is only reference or recommendations, I am sure one can find out who actually translated it.

>So basically you are admitting the usage of YHWH in the OT,
>but now you want me to prove it to you in the NT...okay, but
>before I do, let me ask you a question...why would it
>matter?

Response: Because I think that the NWT translates the word Kurios as Jehovah sometimes and Lord other times with no basis,( I also think they are biased in their translation as well) except there theology.

If the OT writers(as you just admitted) used YHWH,
>do you think God told the inspired writers of the NT, "Okay,
>y'all STOP USING MY NAME NOW, I know your OT counterparts
>used it, but I don't want y'all to...Since Greek is the
>accepted language ever since the Greeks and Romans started
>running things I'm going to change my name from YHWH to
>something else" What kind of sense would that make? NONE
>WHATSOEVER.

Response: LOL no not at all, but since the Jews stopped using his name, that is what took place in the NT, Kurios replaced YHWH, because no one wanted to take his name in vein.

But anyway, HERE IS YOUR PROOF: In the "Journal
>of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of
>Georgia wrote the following: "We know FOR A FACT that
>Greek-speaking Jews continued to write YHWH within their
>Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most UNLIKELY that early
>conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from
>this practice. Although in secondary references to God they
>probably used the words "God" and "Lord", it would have been
>EXTREMELY UNUSUAL for them to have dismissed the Tetragram
>from the biblical text itself...Since the Tetragram was
>still written in the Greek Bible which made up the
>Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe
>that the New Testament writers, when quoting from Scripture,
>preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text...But WHEN
>IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT,

Response: The problem with this arguement, which i have heard time and time and again, is that there is no NT manuscript that supports this theory. And there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts available to us, so why don't we see the name Jehovah in the text anywhere.

it was also
>REMOVED from the QUOTATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
>TESTAMENT. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the
>second century the use of surrogates (substitutes) must have
>crowded out the Tetragram in BOTH TESTAMENTS."--Volume 96,
>No. 1, March 1977, pp.76,77

Response: Then there would be manuscript evidence of such an occurance, but there are non.

>Also, commenting on the fact that the OLDEST fragments of
>the the Greek do contain the divine name in the form "YHWH",
> Dr. P. Kahle wrote: "We now know that that the Greek Bible
>text as far as it was written...did not translate the Divine
>name by kyrios,(Greek for "Lord") but the Tetragrammaton
>written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such
>manuscripts."--"The Cairo Geniza", Oxford, 1959, p.222

Response: He is refering to the LXX, not the Greek new Testament.
>
>If you notice in the 2 references used above, I provided
>some NICE, JUICY PAGE NUMBERS FOR YOU. As far as actual
>scriptural references, there are many translations of the
>Greek Scriptures(NT) that have included the name "Jehovah"
>or "YHWH". I would be happy to name a few:

Response; Still did not give me the translators of the NWT :)
>
>What you need to seriously ask is why someone would want the
>Divine name OUT OF THE BIBLE...

Response: It was'nt, JW's just added in there.

you can barely find it in
>translations of the OT these days. You have already
>admitted that I showed you YHWH in the OT...so why are
>people TAKING IT OUT and just using the titles "God" or
>"Lord"??? Could it be that they DON'T WANT THE DIVINE NAME
>KNOWN???

Response: Not at all, just JW's have an agenda.

>Response: You must not have been a witness for long
AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG...I've been a witness for 20 years, and been an elder for 6 years

>Response: Actually I asked for the Bible translators of NWT.
NO YOU DIDN'T, What you did was try to subtly discredit the NWT by saying that it's translator's were anonymous.

>Response: Yeah that is what I thought, it is being
>responsible. It let's the people reading it know for sure
>the creditials of the translators. You would not let a
>doctor work on you without knowing that he had passed
>medical school.
WHAT is "what you thought"? And the translators of the NWT have been VERY RESPONSIBLE? As far as your doctor illustration, you are comparing APPLES TO TRUCKS. It means nothing. Let me ask you a question, when Jesus chose the apostles, did he go get cats from the rabbinical schools? Did he go get guys who were well versed in the Law of Moses? Pharisees? Saducees? NOPE. He got plain old working class men. Another NON-POINT.

>Response: Nonsense, they did not want to get caught that is
>all. And I am sure you have seen those arguements about
>Fred Franz and the rest being put on trial and stuff for not
>being able to read Greek and Hebrew, how do you refute those
>if you don't even know who translated it?
What is nonsense? Get caught in what? I already let you know the reference works that the NWT was based on, so what NON-POINT are trying to make this time? And don't talk to me about Fred Franz...WE KICKED HIM OUT.

>Response: You obviously bothers you, since you called it a
>SLANDEROUS LIE. gasp.
I dont understand "You obviously bothers you", but I'll assume you meant "It obviously bothers me"...the answer to that once again is BULL, what I called a SLANDEROUS LIE is the fact that you said we are "notorious" for not providing references. This is a LIE. Throughout this discussion I have provided REFERENCE AFTER REFERENCE. You made a FALSE STATEMENT...A LIE.(John 8:44)

>Response: Because I think that the NWT translates the word
>Kurios as Jehovah sometimes and Lord other times with no
>basis,( I also think they are biased in their translation as
>well) except there theology.
I already told you, nobody cares what YOU THINK, SHOW AND PROVE.

>Response: LOL no not at all, but since the Jews stopped
>using his name, that is what took place in the NT, Kurios
>replaced YHWH, because no one wanted to take his name in
>vein.
How is using his name, like had been done for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, all of a sudden "in vain"?

>Response: The problem with this arguement, which i have
>heard time and time and again, is that there is no NT
>manuscript that supports this theory. And there are over
>5,000 Greek manuscripts available to us, so why don't we see
>the name Jehovah in the text anywhere.
>
>Response: Then there would be manuscript evidence of such an
>occurance, but there are non.
Both of the references I gave clearly explained why the Tetragrammaton is not in the vast majority of manuscripts.

>Response; Still did not give me the translators of the NWT
>:)
Once again, trying to discredit evidence, first you gripe about page numbers, I GIVE YOU PAGE NUMBERS, and then you jump back to the translators...which we have already discussed. This is like talking with someone who has short term memory loss...

>Response: It was'nt, JW's just added in there.
Yes it was, you already admitted it was.

>Response: Not at all, just JW's have an agenda.
What "agenda"? Using God's name is an AGENDA? Who wouldn't want God's name known? Didnt Jesus pray that God's NAME to be "hallowed"? How can that be if the name isn't known?

>AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG...I've been a witness for 20 years, and
>been an elder for 6 years

Response: 20 years in the watchtower? I was going to say something smart but that's ok. No need, I have already defended my position without rebuttal so I am set.
>

>NO YOU DIDN'T, What you did was try to subtly discredit the
>NWT by saying that it's translator's were anonymous.

Response: And that is open grounds for you to say hey "hey they are" it is such and such who translated the NWT Bible, but that is unknown.

>WHAT is "what you thought"?

Response: That you were going to give me the same line all JW's give me. The ole they were too humble arguement. wink wink

And the translators of the NWT
>have been VERY RESPONSIBLE?

Response: Not to those of us who actually translate, they are blatantly irresponsible.

As far as your doctor
>illustration, you are comparing APPLES TO TRUCKS. It means
>nothing.

Response: It speaks to credibility of the one doing the job. You don't trust those translators who have not done the work necessary to be able to give an accurate rendering.

Let me ask you a question, when Jesus chose the
>apostles, did he go get cats from the rabbinical schools?
>Did he go get guys who were well versed in the Law of Moses?
> Pharisees? Saducees? NOPE. He got plain old working
>class men. Another NON-POINT.

Response: That has absolutely nothing to do with someone being able to translate from Greek into English or Hebrew into English. Jesus hand picked his apostles to do a job, he did not hand pick those members of the watchtower to translate the NWT.

>What is nonsense? Get caught in what?

Response: Trial, they had him and Rutherford on trial and they both failed a Hebrew test.

I already let you
>know the reference works that the NWT was based on, so what
>NON-POINT are trying to make this time? And don't talk to
>me about Fred Franz...WE KICKED HIM OUT.

Response: Letting me know what they were based upon does not prove to me that they were able to translate it. Futhermore, the Kittle Hebrew Bible has been updated, my version is more modern than the one you posted.
>
>I dont understand "You obviously bothers you", but I'll
>assume you meant "It obviously bothers me"...the answer to
>that once again is BULL, what I called a SLANDEROUS LIE is
>the fact that you said we are "notorious" for not providing
>references. This is a LIE. Throughout this discussion I
>have provided REFERENCE AFTER REFERENCE. You made a FALSE
>STATEMENT...A LIE.(John 8:44)

Response: Please have you ever read the watchtowers "should you believe in the trinity?" Who wrote that? Who are these authors? Have you ever read the watchtower's use of Ignatius, trying to argue that he did not believe in the deity of Christ, they used psuedo ignatius writtings instead of real ignatius writtings. And all of those supposed bible's that translate Theos as a god in that article, when you research those guys out they were mostly quacks. who had no idea what they were doing.
>
>I already told you, nobody cares what YOU THINK, SHOW AND
>PROVE.

Response; Sure Hebrews 1:10-12 in the NWT, they translate Kurios as Lord instead of Jehovah. Why? Because the as they realized points to Christ, and don't give me that Solomon arguement, I already know a rebuttal. And even if the Solomon arguement was right it still does not explain why Kurious is translated as Lord here and Jehovah elsewhere, besides the fact that they picked and chose where they wanted it to be to fit their theology.
>
>How is using his name, like had been done for HUNDREDS OF
>YEARS, all of a sudden "in vain"?

Response: I don't think it is in vein I am saying the Jews did. That is why Kurios is there.
>Once again, trying to discredit evidence, first you gripe
>about page numbers, I GIVE YOU PAGE NUMBERS, and then you
>jump back to the translators...which we have already
>discussed. This is like talking with someone who has short
>term memory loss...

Response: No it like talking to someone who does not buy watchtower theology. And actually I was not going to bring this up until you kept asking.

>Yes it was, you already admitted it was.

Response: Not for the NT.

>What "agenda"? Using God's name is an AGENDA?

Response; Picking and chosing when to place Lord in one verse when applied to Christ and translated Jehovah other places even though they are both Kurios.

Who wouldn't
>want God's name known? Didnt Jesus pray that God's NAME to
>be "hallowed"? How can that be if the name isn't known?

Response: Well that is not the way to go about it.

didn't kick Fred Franz out, we kicked RAY FRANZ out, MY FAULT...

And futhermore, I
>think that Athanasus won the debate, he argued skillfully
>against Arius and Arius had no rebuttal.

u mean Arius was exiled. if he didnt have a rebuttal, why did constantine change his mind and recall arius (and exile athanasus)?

i think you are wholly ignoring the politcs that were involved between the emperor and his beliefs), the greek churches, and the egyptian/eastern churches...

i suppose next you'll say heraclitus was a christian too...(think logos)

>u mean Arius was exiled. if he didnt have a rebuttal, why
>did constantine change his mind and recall arius (and exile
>athanasus)?

Response: Eusebius did it not Arius.
>
>i think you are wholly ignoring the politcs that were
>involved between the emperor and his beliefs), the greek
>churches, and the egyptian/eastern churches...

Response: Not really I really think Athanaseus won, I have read the debate, Arius main scripture was Col 1:15-17 and that holds no weight. I can refute that one.
>
>i suppose next you'll say heraclitus was a christian
>too...(think logos)

Response: LOL, you are silly.

now that's something you don't see everyday!

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

Yeah, I must admit, I did pick up "tricknowledgy" from the 5%ers...

Mathew 24:36

If Jesus is really god how come he did not know about the hour that the great tribulaton would come. Certainly if he was God he would know that.

>Mathew 24:36
>
>If Jesus is really god how come he did not know about the
>hour that the great tribulaton would come. Certainly if he
>was God he would know that.

Response: As a human he chose not to use his omniscience, notice the following statement.

Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.


So even though he was God, he took on the form of a human, limiting his divine powers, and instead became submissive to the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The example I always use is, if you have every played sports with a younger child. And say you are right handed, but you play left handed instead. You have the ability to use your right hand but instead you limit yourself with the left.

>>Mathew 24:36
>>
>>If Jesus is really god how come he did not know about the
>>hour that the great tribulaton would come. Certainly if he
>>was God he would know that.
>
>Response: As a human he chose not to use his omniscience,
>notice the following statement.
>This reply is very shaky.
>Philippians 2:6
>who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard
>equality with God a thing to be grasped,
>If you are going to discuss a piece of text, at least include more than just a verse so that we can get a larger view of the context. However, if this verse is so, then why is it that a "Christians" acceptance of the holy spirity unites them with the diety in Heaven. How can one argue that he did not strive to be equal to God, yet be the living manifestation of the "God" in human form. It does not make sense. Perhaps I do not fully understand your conception of the trinity.
>Philippians 2:7
>but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and
>being made in the likeness of men.
>
>
>So even though he was God, he took on the form of a human,
>limiting his divine powers, and instead became submissive to
>the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
>This also does not make sense. Because the creator of all superceeds, and transcends all laws, even of humanity. Therefore even if the "God" were in human form, it could transcend any human limitations because it is the sustainer and creator of all, is it not? To say that Yeshua as the manifestation of the "God" could not exercise full omnipotence is to be thinking within the realms of the human intellect, and limited by human laws, we all know that within the Judaic, and "Christian" traditions the "God" is not limited to Human laws nor intellect. This reeks of theological(human) interjection and influence, as well as blatant contradiction.
>The example I always use is, if you have every played sports
>with a younger child. And say you are right handed, but you
>play left handed instead. You have the ability to use your
>right hand but instead you limit yourself with the left.

If you are going to discuss a piece of text, at least include more than just a verse so that we can get a larger view of the context.

Response: Well sure, the whole point of the chapter 2 in Phil is humility. There were those in the church who wanted to be in the lime light. Paul, tells them hey be like Christ, even though he was God in nature, he humbled himself. Something hard to imagine, and became a bond servant on our behalf.

Starting at verse 3

Philippians 2:3
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

Response: Here Paul tell them don't do anything out of conceit or selfness towards each other.

Philippians 2:4
do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

Response; Don't do things for personal interest, and then he points to Christ as our role modal. Even though he was God, he did not consider himself to be God.

Philippians 2:5
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Response: In otherwords the very person who deserved to be arrogant and cocky did not. God himself who could boast of ever wonderful deed he has ever done, did not, but rather humbled himself (a thing to be grasped) for our sakes.



However, if this verse is so, then why is it that a "Christians" acceptance of the holy spirity unites them with the diety in Heaven.

Response :Because once we have accepted Christ as our savior the Holy Spirit works in us to conform us to the Image of Christ. Making us more pleasing to God daily.

How can one argue that he did not strive to be equal to God, yet be the living manifestation of the "God" in human form. It does not make sense. Perhaps I do not fully understand your conception of the trinity.

Response: That is the very thing that Paul says "a thing to be grasped" that God almighty would come down to earth as a bond servant for our sakes. When you think about it makes you really appreciate the cross.


This also does not make sense. Because the creator of all superceeds, and transcends all laws, even of humanity. Therefore even if the "God" were in human form, it could transcend any human limitations because it is the sustainer and creator of all, is it not? To say that Yeshua as the manifestation of the "God" could not exercise full omnipotence is to be thinking within the realms of the human intellect, and limited by human laws, we all know that within the Judaic, and "Christian" traditions the "God" is not limited to Human laws nor intellect.

Response: I did not say that Christ *could not* use his powers, I said that he *did not* use his powers. Because he was being submissive to the Father, I said that he limited himself. Notice what it says...

Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.


Christ limited himself, no one made him do it. He volunteered.

gandalf was sent here by the gods with his power limited, so that he would not interfere with the works of men. but he died and came back more powerful when it became known that men would not make it without him.

This is taken off my Blackplanet page, here is a brief look into John 1:1. If the Greek is a little weird feel free to inbox me.

Greek Syntax for John 1:1.

En arche en `o logos, kai `o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en `o logos.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God and the Word was fully God. ( Translation my own.)

Is Jesus being described here as God almighty or just ` a god.` as some would like to say. Many would argue that since the predicate nominative Theos en `o logos does not have the article in front of clause that means that we should translate Theos with the indefinite article. ( a God.)

But this is not the case, first of all Greek grammer is different than English. Word order does not make a difference. Notice the following constructions...

pistos `o logos vs `o logos pistos.

Notice the word order has changed, but we translate both as The Word is faithful. Why? Because in Greek the article tells us which word is the subject (NOMINATIVE CASE) and the word without the article becomes the predicate nominative. It is in the nominative case, so that makes pistos the predicate nominative and logos the nominative subject. This is what is called an equational sentence. Meaning A is B. Or this is that. i.e. John is good, or Bill is great.

Let`s look at one more....

agion `to ethnos verses `to ethnos agion.

TRANSLATION: The nation is Holy.

` To is the neuter article and again it tells us which is the subject. Ethnos

So in the construction the Theos en `o logos. The lack of an article in front of logos does not mean that it is indefinite. Hardly, one would have to explain 2 Cor 5:19 then...

Theos en ev Christo kosmov katallassown eauto.

No one would translate this as `a` God was reconcilling the world to himself in Christ. An indefinite article does not fit, but we have the same construction here in the Greek as in John 1:1. We have Theos followed by an equative verb `en`, so one cannot say that Jesus is `a` God based on the idea that just because Theos is antharous (without the article) then it is indefinite.

The article in front of logos tells us that logos is the subject and Theos is being used in a qualitative sense, meanging that the Word was fully God, not simply a created being.

One may argue that the logos is not ton Theon, ( we omit the article in English translation because it was used by prophets in the Old Testament ha`elohim inorder to distinguish between the one true God and other false gods.)


But John did not omit the article in order to lower the deity of Christ, but rather...

a. to tell us that logos was the subject of the clause and Theos was the predicate nominative.

b. to illustrate that the Son was not the same PERSON as the Father.

c. the Son was with the Father since the beginning, with en being in the imperfect tense signifying a continuous action in the past. Meaning that no matter where one puts the beginning the Son was there.

d. All things came `by him` dia + genative construct. = by or through.

Therefore, John is telling us that Jesus is none other than God.

Osoclasi,

The following is my response to your discussion on John 1:1. The points I am reply to are marked by and closed by . My replies are marked by and closed by

Is Jesus being described here as God almighty or just ` a god.` as some would like to say. Many would argue that since the predicate nominative Theos en `o logos does not have the article in front of clause that means that we should translate Theos with the indefinite article. ( a God.)

This is not entirely accurate. While it is granted that QEOS lacks the article, and thus can rightfully be taken indefinitely, this is not the basis for the argument of an indefinite translation.

Rather, we find that QEOS is a singular count noun. As a count noun, it can be taken either definitely or indefinitely. The question is, which should it be?

If QEOS is in fact definite, we find ourselves with modalism. The other alternative is that QEOS should be taken indefinitely, resulting in the indefinite translation.


No one would translate this as `a` God was reconcilling the world to himself in Christ. An indefinite article does not fit, but we have the same construction here in the Greek as in John 1:1. We have Theos followed by an equative verb `en`, so one cannot say that Jesus is `a` God based on the idea that just because Theos is antharous (without the article) then it is indefinite.



As any first year Greek student can tell you, 2 Cor. 5:19 does not even remotely compare to John 1:1. QEOS is the subject, Christ is the indirect object, and the word is the object. This is not a predicate nominative at all, so there is no basis for comparison, and even if there was, QEOS can be definitized here. Trinitarians are stuck in a bind, because QEOS cannot be definite in John 1:1c without contradicting their theology.



The article in front of logos tells us that logos is the subject and Theos is being used in a qualitative sense, meanging that the Word was fully God, not simply a created being.



QEOS as a predicate nominative is indeed a class noun, demonstrating the quality that one possess. However, unless you can provide an example of a purely qualitative count noun, you have no choice but to confess that we must be able to definitize or indefinitize the noun.

Having said that, what is your basis for concluding that it means he was fully God? Grammatically there is not one. Consider John 6:70.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!

This verse is almost universally translated as "a devil" and yet, just as with John 1:1, it is an anarthrous predicate nominative. Now we understand that in the Bible the Devil is Satan, a person, a fallen angel. Here Jesus states that one of his disciples is DIABOLOS. Here, it is also an anarthrous predicate nominative, so should we also say that all of what Satan is this disciple is too? Is this disciple the Father of the lie? Is this disciple a spirit being? Is this disciple a fallen angel? Well no, he is not. He is a devil, belonging to this class and possessing the qualities of this person, but that does not make him the same or equal to that of Satan the Devil. In this same sense, because Jesus has the quality of QEOS, in that he belongs to the class of QEOS, this does not mean that he is all of what The God is.



the Son was with the Father since the beginning, with en being in the imperfect tense signifying a continuous action in the past. Meaning that no matter where one puts the beginning the Son was there.



I'm not sure if you are arguing based on the imperfect that the Son is eternal or not. Just in case, John 1:10 rules that out, for we all know Christ was not eternally in the world.


Tony-Conclusion:
Osoclasi, you have placed yourself in a difficult spot by using this verse to argue for Trinitarianism. You argue for a qualitative interpretation of John 1:1, which I do not object to, but at the same time you have no choice but to accept that QEOS can be made definite or indefinite. If we definitize it, the result is modalism, and so the alternative is to make it indefinite.

Regards,
Tony

nt

I was just looking back at this reply and I noted that it did not place the marks within the post to see what you said vs. what I said. I am thus reposting it here.

Osoclasi,

The following is my response to your discussion on John 1:1. The points I am reply to are marked by and closed by . My replies are marked by (Tony-Reply)and closed by (/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)s Jesus being described here as God almighty or just ` a god.` as some would like to say. Many would argue that since the predicate nominative Theos en `o logos does not have the article in front of clause that means that we should translate Theos with the indefinite article. ( a God.) (/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)This is not entirely accurate. While it is granted that QEOS lacks the article, and thus can rightfully be taken indefinitely, this is not the basis for the argument of an indefinite translation.

Rather, we find that QEOS is a singular count noun. As a count noun, it can be taken either definitely or indefinitely. The question is, which should it be?

If QEOS is in fact definite, we find ourselves with modalism. The other alternative is that QEOS should be taken indefinitely, resulting in the indefinite translation.(/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)
No one would translate this as `a` God was reconcilling the world to himself in Christ. An indefinite article does not fit, but we have the same construction here in the Greek as in John 1:1. We have Theos followed by an equative verb `en`, so one cannot say that Jesus is `a` God based on the idea that just because Theos is antharous (without the article) then it is indefinite.
(/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)
As any first year Greek student can tell you, 2 Cor. 5:19 does not even remotely compare to John 1:1. QEOS is the subject, Christ is the indirect object, and the world is the object. This is not a predicate nominative at all, so there is no basis for comparison, and even if there was, QEOS can be definitized here. Trinitarians are stuck in a bind, because QEOS cannot be definite in John 1:1c without contradicting their theology.
(/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)
The article in front of logos tells us that logos is the subject and Theos is being used in a qualitative sense, meanging that the Word was fully God, not simply a created being.
(/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)
QEOS as a predicate nominative is indeed a class noun, demonstrating the quality that one possess. However, unless you can provide an example of a purely qualitative count noun, you have no choice but to confess that we must be able to definitize or indefinitize the noun.

Having said that, what is your basis for concluding that it means he was fully God? Grammatically there is not one. Consider John 6:70.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!

This verse is almost universally translated as "a devil" and yet, just as with John 1:1, it is an anarthrous predicate nominative. Now we understand that in the Bible the Devil is Satan, a person, a fallen angel. Here Jesus states that one of his disciples is DIABOLOS. Here, it is also an anarthrous predicate nominative, so should we also say that all of what Satan is this disciple is too? Is this disciple the Father of the lie? Is this disciple a spirit being? Is this disciple a fallen angel? Well no, he is not. He is a devil, belonging to this class and possessing the qualities of this person, but that does not make him the same or equal to that of Satan the Devil. In this same sense, because Jesus has the quality of QEOS, in that he belongs to the class of QEOS, this does not mean that he is all of what The God is.
(/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)
the Son was with the Father since the beginning, with en being in the imperfect tense signifying a continuous action in the past. Meaning that no matter where one puts the beginning the Son was there.
(/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)
I'm not sure if you are arguing based on the imperfect that the Son is eternal or not. Just in case, John 1:10 rules that out, for we all know Christ was not eternally in the world.
(/Tony-Reply)

Tony-Conclusion:
Osoclasi, you have placed yourself in a difficult spot by using this verse to argue for Trinitarianism. You argue for a qualitative interpretation of John 1:1, which I do not object to, but at the same time you have no choice but to accept that QEOS can be made definite or indefinite. If we definitize it, the result is modalism, and so the alternative is to make it indefinite.

Regards,
Tony

>Osoclasi,
>
>This is not entirely accurate. While it is
>granted that QEOS lacks the article, and thus can rightfully
>be taken indefinitely, this is not the basis for the
>argument of an indefinite translation.
>
>Rather, we find that QEOS is a singular count noun. As a
>count noun, it can be taken either definitely or
>indefinitely. The question is, which should it be?

Response: Personally I think that the qualitative usage is much better I will explain below. Forgive me if I am late with responses I am having computer probs over here.

>>
>As any first year Greek student can tell you, 2 Cor. 5:19
>does not even remotely compare to John 1:1. QEOS is the
>subject, Christ is the indirect object, and the word is the
>object. This is not a predicate nominative at all, so there
>is no basis for comparison, and even if there was, QEOS can
>be definitized here. Trinitarians are stuck in a bind,
>because QEOS cannot be definite in John 1:1c without
>contradicting their theology.
>

Response; No tony I was illustrating the fact that THeos does not have an article that is what I meant by having the same construction. The JW was arguing that because John 1:1 Theos does not have the article then it should be indefinite.
>
>
>QEOS as a predicate nominative is indeed a class noun,
>demonstrating the quality that one possess. However, unless
>you can provide an example of a purely qualitative count
>noun, you have no choice but to confess that we must be able
>to definitize or indefinitize the noun.

Response: Sure you could make indefinte or definite but I think that the qualitative use is much better.
>
>Having said that, what is your basis for concluding that it
>means he was fully God? Grammatically there is not one.
>Consider John 6:70.

Response: Actually there is one, the imperfect use of eimi in the beginning of the clause illustrates in my mind that the logos was uncreated. And from there John uses on the imperfect tense of eimi and the aorist tense of engento for everything else with a beginning, so that I why I think the use of Theos is qualitative.
>
>John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you, the
>Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!
>
>This verse is almost universally translated as "a devil" and
>yet, just as with John 1:1, it is an anarthrous predicate
>nominative. Now we understand that in the Bible the Devil is
>Satan, a person, a fallen angel. Here Jesus states that one
>of his disciples is DIABOLOS. Here, it is also an anarthrous
>predicate nominative, so should we also say that all of what
>Satan is this disciple is too? Is this disciple the Father
>of the lie? Is this disciple a spirit being? Is this
>disciple a fallen angel? Well no, he is not. He is a devil,
>belonging to this class and possessing the qualities of this
>person, but that does not make him the same or equal to that
>of Satan the Devil. In this same sense, because Jesus has
>the quality of QEOS, in that he belongs to the class of
>QEOS, this does not mean that he is all of what The God is.
>

Response; Well I think context comes into play, we know that there is only one God, and it seems highly unlikely that John would refer to another being as Theos within the same passage. And two we know Judas is not Satan himself, so he must be describing him in some sort of likeness to him. So I think from an english standpoint the indefinite article should be supplied, because it makes for an easier read.
>
>
>I'm not sure if you are arguing based on the imperfect that
>the Son is eternal or not. Just in case, John 1:10 rules
>that out, for we all know Christ was not eternally in the
>world.
>

Response: LOL, the difference is that in verse 10, a specific limitation has been placed in context, i.e when Christ entered the world,meaning there was a specific time period when he entered the world. Futhermore, eternality itself is not the context of the verse. However in John 1:1 there is no context that limits when the beginning was. And eternality is the context, so no matter where i place the beginning the Logos was there therefore uncreated.
>
>Tony-Conclusion:
>Osoclasi, you have placed yourself in a difficult spot by
>using this verse to argue for Trinitarianism. You argue for
>a qualitative interpretation of John 1:1, which I do not
>object to, but at the same time you have no choice but to
>accept that QEOS can be made definite or indefinite. If we
>definitize it, the result is modalism, and so the
>alternative is to make it indefinite.

Response: I never said that it could not be either or, but I think that the qualitative usage is better.

>>Osoclasi,
>>
>>This is not entirely accurate. While it is
>>granted that QEOS lacks the article, and thus can rightfully
>>be taken indefinitely, this is not the basis for the
>>argument of an indefinite translation.
>>
>>Rather, we find that QEOS is a singular count noun. As a
>>count noun, it can be taken either definitely or
>>indefinitely. The question is, which should it be?
>
>Response: Personally I think that the qualitative usage is
>much better I will explain below. Forgive me if I am late
>with responses I am having computer probs over here.

(Tony-Reply2)
Frankly, this does not cut it. See, you have not addressed the fact that QEOS is a count noun. As such, we MUST be able to take it definitely or indefinitely. I do not deny a level of qualtativeness, but you are arguing for it to be purely qualitative, yet, you have failed to demonstrate a purely qualitative count noun in scripture. Unless you can do that, you have no basis for your conclusion.
(/Tony-Reply2)


>>>
>>As any first year Greek student can tell you, 2 Cor. 5:19
>>does not even remotely compare to John 1:1. QEOS is the
>>subject, Christ is the indirect object, and the word is the
>>object. This is not a predicate nominative at all, so there
>>is no basis for comparison, and even if there was, QEOS can
>>be definitized here. Trinitarians are stuck in a bind,
>>because QEOS cannot be definite in John 1:1c without
>>contradicting their theology.
>>
>
>Response; No tony I was illustrating the fact that THeos
>does not have an article that is what I meant by having the
>same construction. The JW was arguing that because John 1:1
>Theos does not have the article then it should be
>indefinite.

(Tony-Reply2)
As a predicate nominative count noun, it is either definite or indefinite, at the end of the day. You can argue for it being qualitative, but you cannot simply claim that it is purely such and expect us to accept that. The fact of the matter is that ever such noun can either be definitized or indefinitized, and hence it is a count noun, not a mass noun. So which is it, definite (modalism) or indefinite?
(/Tony-Reply2)

>>
>>
>>QEOS as a predicate nominative is indeed a class noun,
>>demonstrating the quality that one possess. However, unless
>>you can provide an example of a purely qualitative count
>>noun, you have no choice but to confess that we must be able
>>to definitize or indefinitize the noun.
>
>Response: Sure you could make indefinte or definite but I
>think that the qualitative use is much better.

(Tony-Reply2)
You are still missing it. Taken qualitatively, we can still make it definite or indefinite. For example, we say Jesus belongs to the class of QEOS. What does that make him? Does it make him the QEOS or a QEOS? He is of the class, so he is one or the other.
(/Tony-Reply2)


>>
>>Having said that, what is your basis for concluding that it
>>means he was fully God? Grammatically there is not one.
>>Consider John 6:70.
>
>Response: Actually there is one, the imperfect use of eimi
>in the beginning of the clause illustrates in my mind that
>the logos was uncreated. And from there John uses on the
>imperfect tense of eimi and the aorist tense of engento for
>everything else with a beginning, so that I why I think the
>use of Theos is qualitative.

(Tony-Reply2)
It only has the LOGOS uncreated if you assume such a priori. I take the imperfect as inceptive, as I do in John 1:10 (see more below). I believe this is highlighted in verse 4, where it states hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN. What came to be in him was life. When was Christ without life? Before it came into him. When did it come into him? John 1:1 is when, and thus he is assigned the title ARCH (Rev 3:14).
(/Tony-Reply2)

>>
>>John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you, the
>>Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!
>>
>>This verse is almost universally translated as "a devil" and
>>yet, just as with John 1:1, it is an anarthrous predicate
>>nominative. Now we understand that in the Bible the Devil is
>>Satan, a person, a fallen angel. Here Jesus states that one
>>of his disciples is DIABOLOS. Here, it is also an anarthrous
>>predicate nominative, so should we also say that all of what
>>Satan is this disciple is too? Is this disciple the Father
>>of the lie? Is this disciple a spirit being? Is this
>>disciple a fallen angel? Well no, he is not. He is a devil,
>>belonging to this class and possessing the qualities of this
>>person, but that does not make him the same or equal to that
>>of Satan the Devil. In this same sense, because Jesus has
>>the quality of QEOS, in that he belongs to the class of
>>QEOS, this does not mean that he is all of what The God is.
>>
>
>Response; Well I think context comes into play, we know that
>there is only one God, and it seems highly unlikely that
>John would refer to another being as Theos within the same
>passage. And two we know Judas is not Satan himself, so he
>must be describing him in some sort of likeness to him. So
>I think from an english standpoint the indefinite article
>should be supplied, because it makes for an easier read.
>>

(Tony-Reply2)
John would not have a problem assigning the title QEOS to others. The angels are given it at Psa 8:5, the judges as Psa 82:6, again, likely the angels at Psa 132:6.

The Keil & Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Old Testament notes: “Everywhere among men, but here pre-eminently, those in authority are God's delegates and the bearers of His image, and therefore as His representatives are also themselves called elohim, “gods”.”

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary states: “This term deity is used… in a singular sense of the one true God in a plural of majesty of excellence … of judges or prophets as ‘to whom the word of God came’ (John 10:35; Ps. 82:6), and whom God consequently dignified with authority to bear His own name.”

Having said that, we know that Jesus is not the God of the OT, for Hebrews 1:1, 2 does not allow for such, so this perfectly fits what you said when you said that "he must be describing him in some sort of likeness to him."
(/Tony-Reply2)

>>
>>I'm not sure if you are arguing based on the imperfect that
>>the Son is eternal or not. Just in case, John 1:10 rules
>>that out, for we all know Christ was not eternally in the
>>world.
>>
>
>Response: LOL, the difference is that in verse 10, a
>specific limitation has been placed in context, i.e when
>Christ entered the world,meaning there was a specific time
>period when he entered the world. Futhermore, eternality
>itself is not the context of the verse. However in John 1:1
>there is no context that limits when the beginning was. And
>eternality is the context, so no matter where i place the
>beginning the Logos was there therefore uncreated.

(Tony-Reply2)
Ahhh.. So you take HN as inceptive here too, as there is emphasis placed on when Christ entered into the world... You've made my point for me! HN does not require eternal prior existence as you argue. It can be inceptive, or it can simply point to some time prior to the ARCH. To say that it is eternally before the ARCH is entirely based on theological presupposition.
(/Tony-Reply2)

>>
>>Tony-Conclusion:
>>Osoclasi, you have placed yourself in a difficult spot by
>>using this verse to argue for Trinitarianism. You argue for
>>a qualitative interpretation of John 1:1, which I do not
>>object to, but at the same time you have no choice but to
>>accept that QEOS can be made definite or indefinite. If we
>>definitize it, the result is modalism, and so the
>>alternative is to make it indefinite.
>
>Response: I never said that it could not be either or, but I
>think that the qualitative usage is better.

(Tony-Reply2)
As I have highlighted, you have to demonstrate your position valid, and in light of QEOS not being a mass noun, this is going to be extremely difficult.
(/Tony-Reply2)

Regards,
Tony

Ok I got a second to respond to some of these while at work, the only problem is that I don't have my bible in front of me, but I will be back home around 10, so if i skip something I will answer it then.

>(Tony-Reply2)
>Frankly, this does not cut it. See, you have not addressed
>the fact that QEOS is a count noun. As such, we MUST be
>able to take it definitely or indefinitely. I do not deny a
>level of qualtativeness, but you are arguing for it to be
>purely qualitative, yet, you have failed to
>demonstrate a purely qualitative count noun in scripture.
>Unless you can do that, you have no basis for your
>conclusion.
>(/Tony-Reply2)

Response: Actually i said it could taken as either of the three but the context along with the imperfect make me lean towards a qualitative usage as opposes to the others. It being a count noun makes no difference in its usage, unless you want to argue that Greek is incapable of making count nouns qualitative, and upon what Greek grammer text book would you find support?
>
>>(Tony-Reply2)
>As a predicate nominative count noun, it is either definite
>or indefinite, at the end of the day. You can argue for it
>being qualitative, but you cannot simply claim that it is
>purely such and expect us to accept that. The fact of the
>matter is that ever such noun can either be definitized or
>indefinitized, and hence it is a count noun, not a mass
>noun. So which is it, definite (modalism) or indefinite?
>(/Tony-Reply2)
>

Response: Again unless you are argueing that it can't be qualitative and greek cannot do this, then my arguement stands. Based upon the context and the imperfect tense of the verb. And I know of know Greek textbook that would argue against my view.
>(Tony-Reply2)
>You are still missing it. Taken qualitatively, we can still
>make it definite or indefinite. For example, we say Jesus
>belongs to the class of QEOS. What does that make him?
>Does it make him the QEOS or a QEOS? He is of the class, so
>he is one or the other.
>(/Tony-Reply2)

Response: Sorry i do not believe that John a jew would call him Theos in the same passage as he calls the Father theos, he could have called him something else if he were simply a class of something. Besides just like when John says that the word became *flesh* he is not saying that he is a class of flesh but rather the quality of flesh, meaning human.
>>(Tony-Reply2)
>It only has the LOGOS uncreated if you assume such a priori.
> I take the imperfect as inceptive, as I do in John 1:10
>(see more below).

Response: No the inceptive deals with someone beginnign to perform some sort of action, such as coming into the world. In John 1:1 Jesus nor the Father are beginning anything, the word was there, that is all JOhn said. YOu are reading your theology into the text here.

I believe this is highlighted in verse 4,
>where it states hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN. What came to be
>in him was life. When was Christ without life? Before it
>came into him. When did it come into him? John 1:1 is
>when, and thus he is assigned the title ARCH (Rev 3:14).
>(/Tony-Reply2)

Response: Again that use of the imperfect is off, it would be God began life in him if it were inceptive, or Christ began to give life if it were inceptive, but it is not, meaning that life was always in him. In otherwords the subject is beginnign to do something else if it were inceptive.
>
Tony-Reply2)
>John would not have a problem assigning the title QEOS to
>others. The angels are given it at Psa 8:5, the judges as
>Psa 82:6, again, likely the angels at Psa 132:6.

Resposne: They are called elohim (plural) we can tell by the verb in Hebrew whether or not it should be translated as singular or plural, they are never called elohim with a singular verb. Jesus is called Theos singular and the context of the passage demonstrates that he is God almighty by showing us that he is eternal and that he has the qualities of being fully God.

>
>>Having said that, we know that Jesus is not the God of the
>OT, for Hebrews 1:1, 2 does not allow for such, so this
>perfectly fits what you said when you said that "he must be
>describing him in some sort of likeness to him."
>(/Tony-Reply2)

Response: Actually he is the God of the OT since i will argue later on that all OT appearances of YHWH were non other than Christ since no one can see the Father and live. But to argue it now would be off topic.
>
>(Tony-Reply2)
>Ahhh.. So you take HN as inceptive here too, as there is
>emphasis placed on when Christ entered into the world...
>You've made my point for me! HN does not require eternal
>prior existence as you argue. It can be inceptive, or it
>can simply point to some time prior to the ARCH. To say
>that it is eternally before the ARCH is entirely based on
>theological presupposition.
>(/Tony-Reply2)

Response: Actually the context of verse 9 leading into verse 10 makes me use that, because CHrist the subject began to enter the world, the subject is doing the action he is beginning to enter the world. Or it means as long as the world was the logos was there present, and since i believe that as well, it fits my view. Hn does require an eternal existance in JOhn 1;1 because no matter where one puts the beginnign the logos was there, he was not beginning some sort of action, neither was the Father he always was. Eternalty is in view here, not so in 1;10.
>
>(Tony-Reply2)
>As I have highlighted, you have to demonstrate your position
>valid, and in light of QEOS not being a mass noun, this is
>going to be extremely difficult.
>(/Tony-Reply2)

Response: Not at all. As a matter of fact I believe that there are some verses in the NWT that translate Kurios a count noun as qualitative, but i will look those up when I get home.

>Ok I got a second to respond to some of these while at work,
>the only problem is that I don't have my bible in front of
>me, but I will be back home around 10, so if i skip
>something I will answer it then.
>
>>(Tony-Reply2)
>>Frankly, this does not cut it. See, you have not addressed
>>the fact that QEOS is a count noun. As such, we MUST be
>>able to take it definitely or indefinitely. I do not deny a
>>level of qualtativeness, but you are arguing for it to be
>>purely qualitative, yet, you have failed to
>>demonstrate a purely qualitative count noun in scripture.
>>Unless you can do that, you have no basis for your
>>conclusion.
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>
>Response: Actually i said it could taken as either of the
>three but the context along with the imperfect make me lean
>towards a qualitative usage as opposes to the others. It
>being a count noun makes no difference in its usage, unless
>you want to argue that Greek is incapable of making count
>nouns qualitative, and upon what Greek grammer text book
>would you find support?

(Tony-Reply3)
I do not object to a qualitative rendering. However, being rendered qualitatively, you can STILL indefinitize it. You have to demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative and CANNOT be made definite or indefinite. Otherwise your position does not stand.
(/Tony-Reply3)


>
>>>(Tony-Reply2)
>>As a predicate nominative count noun, it is either definite
>>or indefinite, at the end of the day. You can argue for it
>>being qualitative, but you cannot simply claim that it is
>>purely such and expect us to accept that. The fact of the
>>matter is that ever such noun can either be definitized or
>>indefinitized, and hence it is a count noun, not a mass
>>noun. So which is it, definite (modalism) or indefinite?
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>>
>
>Response: Again unless you are argueing that it can't be
>qualitative and greek cannot do this, then my arguement
>stands. Based upon the context and the imperfect tense of
>the verb. And I know of know Greek textbook that would
>argue against my view.
>>(Tony-Reply2)
>>You are still missing it. Taken qualitatively, we can still
>>make it definite or indefinite. For example, we say Jesus
>>belongs to the class of QEOS. What does that make him?
>>Does it make him the QEOS or a QEOS? He is of the class, so
>>he is one or the other.
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>
>Response: Sorry i do not believe that John a jew would call
>him Theos in the same passage as he calls the Father theos,
>he could have called him something else if he were simply a
>class of something. Besides just like when John says that
>the word became *flesh* he is not saying that he is a class
>of flesh but rather the quality of flesh, meaning human.

(Tony-Reply3)
Why? What is your scriptural basis for this. You are now working based on your a priori assumption. This is called eisegesis, not exegesis.

Regarding flesh, SARX is a mass noun, not a count noun, so it does not compare.
(/Tony-Reply3)

>>>(Tony-Reply2)
>>It only has the LOGOS uncreated if you assume such a priori.
>> I take the imperfect as inceptive, as I do in John 1:10
>>(see more below).
>
>Response: No the inceptive deals with someone beginnign to
>perform some sort of action, such as coming into the world.
>In John 1:1 Jesus nor the Father are beginning anything, the
>word was there, that is all JOhn said. YOu are reading your
>theology into the text here.

(Tony-Reply3)
And hence I believe it is an inceptive imperfect! Christ was in the world when he came to be in the world. I believe Christ was in the beginning at the simultaneous moment that the ARCH came to be. Hence Jesus is the ARCH (Rev 3:14). This has nothing to do with reading theology into the text, but simply taking it for what it says, based on the concept of HN being an inceptive imperfect. You are the one reading your theology by assuming that the imperfect denotes eternal existence, when there is no real basis for such.
(/Tony-Reply3)

>
> I believe this is highlighted in verse 4,
>>where it states hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN. What came to be
>>in him was life. When was Christ without life? Before it
>>came into him. When did it come into him? John 1:1 is
>>when, and thus he is assigned the title ARCH (Rev 3:14).
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>
>Response: Again that use of the imperfect is off, it would
>be God began life in him if it were inceptive, or Christ
>began to give life if it were inceptive, but it is not,
>meaning that life was always in him. In otherwords the
>subject is beginnign to do something else if it were
>inceptive.

(Tony-Reply3)
GEGONEN is not the imperfect, but the perfect. Life came to be in Christ. Prior to life coming into him, obviously life was not in him. I'm not sure if you really understand what the inceptive imperfect is.
(/Tony-Reply3)

>>
>Tony-Reply2)
>>John would not have a problem assigning the title QEOS to
>>others. The angels are given it at Psa 8:5, the judges as
>>Psa 82:6, again, likely the angels at Psa 132:6.
>
>Resposne: They are called elohim (plural) we can tell by the
>verb in Hebrew whether or not it should be translated as
>singular or plural, they are never called elohim with a
>singular verb. Jesus is called Theos singular and the
>context of the passage demonstrates that he is God almighty
>by showing us that he is eternal and that he has the
>qualities of being fully God.

(Tony-Reply3)
Not always. Psalms 8:5 does not have that, yet ELOHIM is undoubtably used in reference to the angels yet there is no plural verb.

You continue to claim that he is given the attributes and eternality of God Almighty, but you are failing to demonstrate such, you only claim it.
(/Tony-Reply3)

>
>>
>>>Having said that, we know that Jesus is not the God of the
>>OT, for Hebrews 1:1, 2 does not allow for such, so this
>>perfectly fits what you said when you said that "he must be
>>describing him in some sort of likeness to him."
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>
>Response: Actually he is the God of the OT since i will
>argue later on that all OT appearances of YHWH were non
>other than Christ since no one can see the Father and live.
>But to argue it now would be off topic.

(Tony-Reply3)
Actually, as I can demonstrate, they were angels... in representation of God. But again, another topic.
(/Tony-Reply3)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply2)
>>Ahhh.. So you take HN as inceptive here too, as there is
>>emphasis placed on when Christ entered into the world...
>>You've made my point for me! HN does not require eternal
>>prior existence as you argue. It can be inceptive, or it
>>can simply point to some time prior to the ARCH. To say
>>that it is eternally before the ARCH is entirely based on
>>theological presupposition.
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>
>Response: Actually the context of verse 9 leading into verse
>10 makes me use that, because CHrist the subject began to
>enter the world, the subject is doing the action he is
>beginning to enter the world. Or it means as long as the
>world was the logos was there present, and since i believe
>that as well, it fits my view. Hn does require an eternal
>existance in JOhn 1;1 because no matter where one puts the
>beginnign the logos was there, he was not beginning some
>sort of action, neither was the Father he always was.
>Eternalty is in view here, not so in 1;10.

(Tony-Reply3)
If HN is inceptive in John 1:10, what is your basis for dismissing it as such in 1:1?

See, you assume that Jesus was eternal, you still cannot demonstrate it. Even if HN is not inceptive, consider this. Let us say the ARCH was 20 billion years ago. hO LOGOS was there. What is to say that hO LOGOS didn't come into existence 25 billion years ago? There is nothing to say one way or another. You work entirely off of your a priori assumption that he is. Circular reasoning at its best here.
(/Tony-Reply3)


>>
>>(Tony-Reply2)
>>As I have highlighted, you have to demonstrate your position
>>valid, and in light of QEOS not being a mass noun, this is
>>going to be extremely difficult.
>>(/Tony-Reply2)
>
>Response: Not at all. As a matter of fact I believe that
>there are some verses in the NWT that translate Kurios a
>count noun as qualitative, but i will look those up when I
>get home.

(Tony-Reply3)
Yes it does, but they are not purely qualitative as you are arguing for John 1:1c. That is the difference. They can all be taken definitely or indefinitely.
(/Tony-Reply3)

Tony-Conclusion3
Osoclasi, you are still stuck in the difficult position of arguing for QEOS to be purely qualitative. If we accept a qualitative rendering, such as "the word was deity," we still must accept that we can take this as "the word was a deity" or "the word was the deity." If we go with the first, we have no contextual problem, but the second results in modalism.

Regards,
Tony

>(Tony-Reply3)
>I do not object to a qualitative rendering. However, being
>rendered qualitatively, you can STILL indefinitize it. You
>have to demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative and CANNOT
>be made definite or indefinite. Otherwise your position
>does not stand.
>(/Tony-Reply3)

Response: My position is that is not that a person *cannot* indefinitize it, my position that it is qualitative shows that a) the largest portion of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this catergory according to wallace, and b) the context of the passage points to this.

Therefore my posistion is that it is not necessary to make theos indefinite.
>
>>(Tony-Reply3)
>Why? What is your scriptural basis for this. You are now
>working based on your a priori assumption. This is called
>eisegesis, not exegesis.

Response: Dude, they would not even pronounce his name let alone call another being by the same noun.
>
>Regarding flesh, SARX is a mass noun, not a count noun, so
>it does not compare.

Repsonse: I was illustrating that it is a qualitative usage nothing more. If you want a qualitative usage of a count noun check out the NWT of Matthew 12:8. I would also tranlsate it qualitatively.
>>(Tony-Reply3)
>And hence I believe it is an inceptive imperfect! Christ
>was in the world when he came to be in the world. I believe
>Christ was in the beginning at the simultaneous moment that
>the ARCH came to be. Hence Jesus is the ARCH (Rev 3:14).

Response; Again inceptive imperfect deal with someone beginning to do an action, if John had wanted to say that the Son was created he would have used egeneto like he did for everything else in the passage that has been created. John specifically applies en to Christ egeneto to everything else. And Rev 3:14 means originator or ruler.


>This has nothing to do with reading theology into the text,
>but simply taking it for what it says, based on the concept
>of HN being an inceptive imperfect. You are the one
>reading your theology by assuming that the imperfect denotes
>eternal existence, when there is no real basis for such.
>(/Tony-Reply3)

Response: Sure I have basis, inceptive imperfects dont function the way you are implying.
>
>(Tony-Reply3)
>GEGONEN is not the imperfect, but the perfect. Life came
>to be in Christ. Prior to life coming into him,
>obviously life was not in him. I'm not sure if you really
>understand what the inceptive imperfect is.
>(/Tony-Reply3)


Response: The inceptive imperfect " the imperfect is often used to stress THE BEGINNING of an action, with the implications that it continued for some time." Wallace p 544.

futhermore what are you looking at? gegonen is in verse 3 and the part about life is in verse 4.

3. panta di autou egeneto kai choris autou egeneto oude en o gegonen.

all things through him existed and apart from him nothing existed which has become.

That has nothing to do with Christ life.

en auto zon in him was life, meaning life always was in him eternally.

you seem to be mixing up verses.
>(Tony-Reply3)
>Not always. Psalms 8:5 does not have that, yet ELOHIM is
>undoubtably used in reference to the angels yet there is no
>plural verb.

Response: Or it could be refering to God himself and not angels.
>
>You continue to claim that he is given the attributes and
>eternality of God Almighty, but you are failing to
>demonstrate such, you only claim it.
>(/Tony-Reply3)

Response: Actually I have you are just making up your own grammaticle rules here.
>>
>(Tony-Reply3)
>Actually, as I can demonstrate, they were angels... in
>representation of God. But again, another topic.
>(/Tony-Reply3)

Response: Sure later it is.
>(Tony-Reply3)
>If HN is inceptive in John 1:10, what is your basis for
>dismissing it as such in 1:1?

REsponse: Context, John 1:10 context is driven by verse 9, the one who comes into the world, in 1:1 eternality is in view.
>
>See, you assume that Jesus was eternal, you still cannot
>demonstrate it. Even if HN is not inceptive, consider this.
> Let us say the ARCH was 20 billion years ago. hO LOGOS was
>there. What is to say that hO LOGOS didn't come into
>existence 25 billion years ago? There is nothing to say one
>way or another. You work entirely off of your a priori
>assumption that he is. Circular reasoning at its best here.
>(/Tony-Reply3)

Response:Or you can say 26 billion the logos was there, or 28, it does not matter, wherever you put the beginnig the logos was there and especcially when you cnosider the use of en verse egeneto in John 1:1-18 it is obvious what John is doing, if Chrsit were created egeneto would be applied to him, and yuo don't see that until verse 18.
>
>Yes it does, but they are not purely qualitative as
>you are arguing for John 1:1c. That is the difference. They
>can all be taken definitely or indefinitely.
>(/Tony-Reply3)

Response: I never said that Theos could not be taken indefinitely I said that the qualtitative usage is the best canidate.
>

>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>I do not object to a qualitative rendering. However, being
>>rendered qualitatively, you can STILL indefinitize it. You
>>have to demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative and CANNOT
>>be made definite or indefinite. Otherwise your position
>>does not stand.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>Response: My position is that is not that a person *cannot*
>indefinitize it, my position that it is qualitative shows
>that a) the largest portion of preverbal anarthrous
>predicate nominatives fall into this catergory according to
>wallace, and b) the context of the passage points to this.

(Tony-Reply4)
Actually, if we go by the KJV, I believe we'll find that most PNs are translated indefinitely. If you take QEOS qualitatively, and you cannot take it definitely, and you cannot demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative, you have no basis for objecting to the indefinite translation.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>Therefore my posistion is that it is not necessary to make
>theos indefinite.
>>
>>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>Why? What is your scriptural basis for this. You are now
>>working based on your a priori assumption. This is called
>>eisegesis, not exegesis.
>
>Response: Dude, they would not even pronounce his name let
>alone call another being by the same noun.

(Tony-Reply4)
QEOS is not a name, it is a title. The Jews had no problem using the term QEOS at that time, as evident in scripture.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>>
>>Regarding flesh, SARX is a mass noun, not a count noun, so
>>it does not compare.
>
>Repsonse: I was illustrating that it is a qualitative usage
>nothing more. If you want a qualitative usage of a count
>noun check out the NWT of Matthew 12:8. I would also
>tranlsate it qualitatively.

(Tony-Reply4)
Certainly it is, but there is no objection to translating it definitely either. In light of QEOS in John 1:1c not being purely qualitiative, it is to be taken as qualitative-indefinite.
(/Tony-Reply4)


>>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>And hence I believe it is an inceptive imperfect! Christ
>>was in the world when he came to be in the world. I believe
>>Christ was in the beginning at the simultaneous moment that
>>the ARCH came to be. Hence Jesus is the ARCH (Rev 3:14).
>
>Response; Again inceptive imperfect deal with someone
>beginning to do an action, if John had wanted to say that
>the Son was created he would have used egeneto like he did
>for everything else in the passage that has been created.
>John specifically applies en to Christ egeneto to everything
>else. And Rev 3:14 means originator or ruler.

(Tony-Reply4)
John used HN in verse 10, where it is clearly inceptive. He used GEGONEN in verse 4. It depends on what aspect he wants to stress. If he wants to stress him being in the state he entered or if he wants to stress him entering the state. Obviously in verses 1 and 10 he wanted to stress him being in the state he entered.

As for Rev 3:14, originator is ruled out by the use of TOU QEOU, while ruler would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>
>
>>This has nothing to do with reading theology into the text,
>>but simply taking it for what it says, based on the concept
>>of HN being an inceptive imperfect. You are the one
>>reading your theology by assuming that the imperfect denotes
>>eternal existence, when there is no real basis for such.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>Response: Sure I have basis, inceptive imperfects dont
>function the way you are implying.

(Tony-Reply4)Nice claim. Care to back it up? It functions exactly as I have stated in John 1:10, your theological presupposition seems to limit you from accepting it in John 1:1 though.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>GEGONEN is not the imperfect, but the perfect. Life came
>>to be in Christ. Prior to life coming into him,
>>obviously life was not in him. I'm not sure if you really
>>understand what the inceptive imperfect is.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>
>Response: The inceptive imperfect " the imperfect is often
>used to stress THE BEGINNING of an action, with the
>implications that it continued for some time." Wallace p
>544.
>
>futhermore what are you looking at? gegonen is in verse 3
>and the part about life is in verse 4.
>
>3. panta di autou egeneto kai choris autou egeneto oude en o
>gegonen.
>
>all things through him existed and apart from him nothing
>existed which has become.
>
>That has nothing to do with Christ life.
>
>en auto zon in him was life, meaning life always was in him
>eternally.
>
>you seem to be mixing up verses.

(Tony-Reply4)
You are using incorrect punctuation is the problem. The NA27 GNT places a full stop between hHN and hO GEGONEN. According to the testimony of the early church fathers, hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4, as done by the New Jerusalem Bible.

Theophilus: Book II, Chapter XXII.
Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."

Tertullian: Against Hermogenes,Chapter XX.
"Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made."

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made;""

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.
"The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.""

Athanasius, Against the Heathen, Part III, §42.
"as also the Divine says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.""

Thus Robertson notes: "Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation. . . That which has come into being (Joh_1:3) in the Logos was life."
(/Tony-Reply4)

>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>Not always. Psalms 8:5 does not have that, yet ELOHIM is
>>undoubtably used in reference to the angels yet there is no
>>plural verb.
>
>Response: Or it could be refering to God himself and not
>angels.

(Tony-Reply4)
According to the LXX and Paul's quotation at Hebrews 2:7, it is angels.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>>
>>You continue to claim that he is given the attributes and
>>eternality of God Almighty, but you are failing to
>>demonstrate such, you only claim it.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>Response: Actually I have you are just making up your own
>grammaticle rules here.

(Tony-Reply4)
I can demonstrate my claims by example, you do nothing more than make empty claims. You have yet to demonstrate your position on anything even a single time.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>>>
>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>Actually, as I can demonstrate, they were angels... in
>>representation of God. But again, another topic.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>Response: Sure later it is.
>>(Tony-Reply3)
>>If HN is inceptive in John 1:10, what is your basis for
>>dismissing it as such in 1:1?
>
>REsponse: Context, John 1:10 context is driven by verse 9,
>the one who comes into the world, in 1:1 eternality is in
>view.
>>
>>See, you assume that Jesus was eternal, you still cannot
>>demonstrate it. Even if HN is not inceptive, consider this.
>> Let us say the ARCH was 20 billion years ago. hO LOGOS was
>>there. What is to say that hO LOGOS didn't come into
>>existence 25 billion years ago? There is nothing to say one
>>way or another. You work entirely off of your a priori
>>assumption that he is. Circular reasoning at its best here.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>Response:Or you can say 26 billion the logos was there, or
>28, it does not matter, wherever you put the beginnig the
>logos was there and especcially when you cnosider the use of
>en verse egeneto in John 1:1-18 it is obvious what John is
>doing, if Chrsit were created egeneto would be applied to
>him, and yuo don't see that until verse 18.

(Tony-Reply4)
You're still not getting it. You assume eternality, but the text is 100% ambiguous to anyone who really understands the language. HN, if we do not take it inceptively, denotes him being in the state of existence at the ARCH, it has no bearing on if he has eternally been there or only been there for a limited time prior.
(/Tony-Reply4)

>>
>>Yes it does, but they are not purely qualitative as
>>you are arguing for John 1:1c. That is the difference. They
>>can all be taken definitely or indefinitely.
>>(/Tony-Reply3)
>
>Response: I never said that Theos could not be taken
>indefinitely I said that the qualtitative usage is the best
>canidate.
>>

(Tony-Reply4)
And in light of that, it is not purely qualitative, and so it is indefinitized, ala the NWT, thus resulting in a perfectly acceptable translation.
(/Tony-Reply4).

Regards,
Tony

>
>(Tony-Reply4)
>Actually, if we go by the KJV, I believe we'll find that
>most PNs are translated indefinitely. If you take QEOS
>qualitatively, and you cannot take it definitely, and you
>cannot demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative, you have
>no basis for objecting to the indefinite translation.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: Again I said that it is the best fit, and CONTEXT (don't forget this one) drives more towards the qualitative usage over the others, if you want to go indefinite fine, but it is not the best answer.

Here is why: John only uses the imperfect for Christ an aorist for everything else in the first 18 chapters thus stressing the Logos eternality.

>>(Tony-Reply4)
>QEOS is not a name, it is a title. The Jews had no problem
>using the term QEOS at that time, as evident in scripture.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: But to call another being by the same title as YHWH in the same verse is not correct.
>(Tony-Reply4)
>Certainly it is, but there is no objection to translating it
>definitely either. In light of QEOS in John 1:1c not being
>purely qualitiative, it is to be taken as
>qualitative-indefinite.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: That is fine but it is not the best fit.
>
>>(Tony-Reply4)
>John used HN in verse 10, where it is clearly inceptive. He
>used GEGONEN in verse 4. It depends on what aspect he wants
>to stress. If he wants to stress him being in the state he
>entered or if he wants to stress him entering the state.
>Obviously in verses 1 and 10 he wanted to stress him being
>in the state he entered.

Response: I already answered you in regards to why an inceptive would fit in verse 10 as opposed to verse 1, because

1. eternality is not in view

2. verse 9 tells us that he is the one coming into the world, therefore he must have began the action of coming into the world.

3. In John 1:1 however there is no such context, hence you keep going over to Rev 3:14 for help, because the context doesn not help you.

4. you have yet to address en verses egeneto.
>
>As for Rev 3:14, originator is ruled out by the use of TOU
>QEOU, while ruler would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: why? The originator of God's creation.
>(Tony-Reply4)Nice claim. Care to back it up? It functions
>exactly as I have stated in John 1:10, your theological
>presupposition seems to limit you from accepting it in John
>1:1 though.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: Sure, as I have said before.

1. Inceptive illustrate someone beginning to do an action.

2. There is not action being done in John 1:1

3. If there was action being done to the Logos such as creation there would be a passive verb there or at least an aorist, meaning he was created and the creation is complete.

>(Tony-Reply4)
>You are using incorrect punctuation is the problem. The
>NA27 GNT places a full stop between hHN and hO GEGONEN.
>According to the testimony of the early church fathers, hO
>GEGONEN goes with verse 4, as done by the New Jerusalem
>Bible.

Respnse: I am sure that there the majority of realible manuscripts float towards the GNT. BEsides it makes more sense the way teh GNT has it.
>>
>(Tony-Reply4)
>I can demonstrate my claims by example, you do nothing more
>than make empty claims. You have yet to demonstrate your
>position on anything even a single time.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

REsponse: Actually I have they just keep getting erased by you, I know I have brought up en verses egeneto before, I know I have brought up the issue of eternaltiy etc.
>(Tony-Reply4)
>You're still not getting it. You assume eternality, but the
>text is 100% ambiguous to anyone who really understands the
>language. HN, if we do not take it inceptively, denotes him
>being in the state of existence at the ARCH, it has no
>bearing on if he has eternally been there or only been there
>for a limited time prior.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: Yes it does, because John does not tell us when the beginnign was, he leaves it wide open and since the gives everything else that is creatred egeneto it is easy to see that eternality is in view.
>
>(Tony-Reply4)
>And in light of that, it is not purely qualitative, and so
>it is indefinitized, ala the NWT, thus resulting in a
>perfectly acceptable translation.
>(/Tony-Reply4).

Response: Uh no, it does not have to be indefinitized ala every single realible bible translation.

>>
>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>Actually, if we go by the KJV, I believe we'll find that
>>most PNs are translated indefinitely. If you take QEOS
>>qualitatively, and you cannot take it definitely, and you
>>cannot demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative, you have
>>no basis for objecting to the indefinite translation.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>Response: Again I said that it is the best fit, and CONTEXT
>(don't forget this one) drives more towards the qualitative
>usage over the others, if you want to go indefinite fine,
>but it is not the best answer.

(Tony-Reply5)
Yet, in light of the fact that it cannot be purely qualitative, because you cannot demonstrate such a count noun even exists, and that it cannot be qualitative-definite, because that would be modalism, the only solution is that it is qualitative-indefinite, thus making the NWT fit perfectly!
(/Tony-Reply5)


>
>Here is why: John only uses the imperfect for Christ an
>aorist for everything else in the first 18 chapters thus
>stressing the Logos eternality.

(Tony-Reply5)
Wrong. Verse 14 uses GINOMAI for Christ, while verse 10 uses HN inceptively for him.
(/Tony-Reply5)

>
>>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>QEOS is not a name, it is a title. The Jews had no problem
>>using the term QEOS at that time, as evident in scripture.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>Response: But to call another being by the same title as
>YHWH in the same verse is not correct.

(Tony-Reply5)
Why? The Jews didn't seem to have a problem with it.

John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God.

God gets the title Father and so does Abraham. And now, before you go and run and say that it isn't the same verse, the Bible was not written in verses, they are a later addition. It is in the very same context, they said one after another. If God and Abraham can be equated on such a level, so can God and Jesus.
(/Tony-Reply5)


>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>Certainly it is, but there is no objection to translating it
>>definitely either. In light of QEOS in John 1:1c not being
>>purely qualitiative, it is to be taken as
>>qualitative-indefinite.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>Response: That is fine but it is not the best fit.
>>
>>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>John used HN in verse 10, where it is clearly inceptive. He
>>used GEGONEN in verse 4. It depends on what aspect he wants
>>to stress. If he wants to stress him being in the state he
>>entered or if he wants to stress him entering the state.
>>Obviously in verses 1 and 10 he wanted to stress him being
>>in the state he entered.
>
>Response: I already answered you in regards to why an
>inceptive would fit in verse 10 as opposed to verse 1,
>because
>
>1. eternality is not in view
>
>2. verse 9 tells us that he is the one coming into the
>world, therefore he must have began the action of coming
>into the world.
>
>3. In John 1:1 however there is no such context, hence you
>keep going over to Rev 3:14 for help, because the context
>doesn not help you.
>
>4. you have yet to address en verses egeneto.

(Tony-Reply5)
1. You ASSUME eternity is in view in verse 1. Whether or not it is or isn't is not significant though. Even if it is, that does not stop HN being inceptive.

2. And verse 4 tells us that life came to be in the son.

3. Verse 3 is part of the context! I would also note the parallel at 1 John 1:1, which states he is "from the beginning", denoting the ARCH as his source, further hinting at Hn being inceptive.

4) Yes, I have. It comes down to what John wanted to stress. The inceptive imperfect places greater stress on the fact that he existed in the state he entered, while the GINOMAI places stress on him entering the state.

(/Tony-Reply5)


>>
>>As for Rev 3:14, originator is ruled out by the use of TOU
>>QEOU, while ruler would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>Response: why? The originator of God's creation.

(Tony-Reply5) Because God is the originator of God's creation! It belongs to him, not the ARCH. Further, Jesus is shown to be the intermediate agent (John 1:3, Col 1:16), something that would contradict him being the source. Him being the source would require 2 groups of creation, which there are not. And as I already highlighted, ARCH is never used in scripture to show source.
(/Tony-Reply5)

>>(Tony-Reply4)Nice claim. Care to back it up? It functions
>>exactly as I have stated in John 1:10, your theological
>>presupposition seems to limit you from accepting it in John
>>1:1 though.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>Response: Sure, as I have said before.
>
>1. Inceptive illustrate someone beginning to do an action.
>
>2. There is not action being done in John 1:1
>
>3. If there was action being done to the Logos such as
>creation there would be a passive verb there or at least an
>aorist, meaning he was created and the creation is complete.

(Tony-Reply5)
There is no action!?!?! Then what is that pesky verb doing there!? There is absolutely action there.. He was eimi-ing. The inceptive imperfect is perfectly allowable there, but theologically you must deny it. You have not given me any grammatical grounds for doing so, however, in light of the fact that you've already admitted that verse 10 has one, your grounds for denying it in verse 1 have grown about as strong as a toothpick.
(/Tony-Reply5)

>
>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>You are using incorrect punctuation is the problem. The
>>NA27 GNT places a full stop between hHN and hO GEGONEN.
>>According to the testimony of the early church fathers, hO
>>GEGONEN goes with verse 4, as done by the New Jerusalem
>>Bible.
>
>Respnse: I am sure that there the majority of realible
>manuscripts float towards the GNT. BEsides it makes more
>sense the way teh GNT has it.

(Tony-Reply5)
Yes, the GNT has no punctuation, so it does make the most sense that way. In light of it lacking such, we go to how the earliest people understood it.. specifically those who were native koine Greek speakers. These ones all connected hO GEGONEN to verse 4, and so we should do the same.
(/Tony-Reply5)

>>>
>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>I can demonstrate my claims by example, you do nothing more
>>than make empty claims. You have yet to demonstrate your
>>position on anything even a single time.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>REsponse: Actually I have they just keep getting erased by
>you, I know I have brought up en verses egeneto before, I
>know I have brought up the issue of eternaltiy etc.

(Tony-Reply5)
And you know what, bringing it up doesn't PROVE anything. Check this out: God is a 5 dimensional being. Guess what. If you just say he is 3D, and I say no he is 5D, have I proved something? Nope. And neither have you. I have demonstrated the inceptive imperfect in John 1, I have explained the difference between the use of HN and GINOMAI. You have come back with nothing more than tiresome repetition that completely fails to engage the points I've made.
(/Tony-Reply5)


>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>You're still not getting it. You assume eternality, but the
>>text is 100% ambiguous to anyone who really understands the
>>language. HN, if we do not take it inceptively, denotes him
>>being in the state of existence at the ARCH, it has no
>>bearing on if he has eternally been there or only been there
>>for a limited time prior.
>>(/Tony-Reply4)
>
>Response: Yes it does, because John does not tell us when
>the beginnign was, he leaves it wide open and since the
>gives everything else that is creatred egeneto it is easy to
>see that eternality is in view.

(Tony-Reply5)
Yawn... Assumptions, Assumptions, Assumptions. Let us stop with the eisigesis and return to exegesis please. hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN (What has came to be in him was life). Yes, life came to be in Christ! How much clearly can scripture be!?
(/Tony-Reply5)


>>
>>(Tony-Reply4)
>>And in light of that, it is not purely qualitative, and so
>>it is indefinitized, ala the NWT, thus resulting in a
>>perfectly acceptable translation.
>>(/Tony-Reply4).
>
>Response: Uh no, it does not have to be indefinitized ala
>every single realible bible translation.

(Tony-Reply5)
99% of the Bible translations out there (all the ones that say "and the Word was God") are actually teaching modalism, since QEOS is treated definitely. Here are just a few of the MANY that make QEOS indefinite.

The Translator's New Testament: "the Word was a God."
The New Testament in Greek and English: "and the word was a god."
George William Horner, 1911, "nd (a) God was the word."
Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god."
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god."
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person."
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god."
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god."
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, "s a god the Command was."
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God."
The Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 Edition: "a god was the Word."
(/Tony-Reply5)

Tony-Conclusion5-
Osoclasi, you continue to deny that HN can be taken inceptively ala John 1:10. If he uses HN inceptively in 10, something you've already admitted to, even though he uses GINOMAI in the context, your basis for denying the same thing for verse 1 is without foundation. You are demonstrating nothing more than a theological bias. Further, when noting that 1 John 1:1 is a parallel to John 1:1, stating he is "from the beginning", the position of HN being inceptive is further solidified. And yet, even further, when we follow the proper punctuation, as demonstrated by all of the early Church writers, we find that life came to be in Christ. Trinitarianism is simply not found in John 1. In fact, these verses damage the doctrine more than any Trinitarian could possibly imagine.

Regards,
Tony

I have been waitnig for a response to that for the entire thread.


>Yet, in light of the fact that it cannot be purely
>qualitative, because you cannot demonstrate such a count
>noun even exists, and that it cannot be
>qualitative-definite, because that would be modalism, the
>only solution is that it is qualitative-indefinite, thus
>making the NWT fit perfectly!
>(/Tony-Reply5)

Response: it does not have to be purely qualitative in order for someone to translate or even for it to mean that it is to be taken qualitatiely you are making up your own rules here.

>
>(Tony-Reply5)
>Wrong. Verse 14 uses GINOMAI for Christ, while verse 10
>uses HN inceptively for him.
>(/Tony-Reply5)

Response: I was hoping you would say that i spoke to my professor today and verse 10 is not inceptive either. I was wrong about that as well. But more later tonight or tomorrow abut it. He is simply surveing Jesus life it is a normal imperfect.
>
>>>(Tony-Reply5)
>Why? The Jews didn't seem to have a problem with it.

God gets the title Father and so does Abraham. And now,
>before you go and run and say that it isn't the same verse,
>the Bible was not written in verses, they are a later
>addition. It is in the very same context, they said one
>after another. If God and Abraham can be equated on such a
>level, so can God and Jesus.

Response; Good point. I will think about that one later.
>

>
>(Tony-Reply5)
>1. You ASSUME eternity is in view in verse 1. Whether or
>not it is or isn't is not significant though. Even if it
>is, that does not stop HN being inceptive.

Response: Actually it does, there has to be some action began by someone for it to be inceptive.
>
>2. And verse 4 tells us that life came to be in the son.

Response: No it says life was in the Son
>
>3. Verse 3 is part of the context! I would also note the
>parallel at 1 John 1:1, which states he is "from the
>beginning", denoting the ARCH as his source, further hinting
>at Hn being inceptive.

Respnose: No he is was he was in the beginnnign with an non inceptive imperfect letting pointing to his eternallity, if he was created engeneto would have been used.
>
>4) Yes, I have. It comes down to what John wanted to
>stress. The inceptive imperfect places greater stress on
>the fact that he existed in the state he entered, while the
>GINOMAI places stress on him entering the state.

Response: Ginomai stresses that the world was created and had a starting point.
>
>(Tony-Reply5) Because God is the originator of God's
>creation! It belongs to him, not the ARCH. Further, Jesus
>is shown to be the intermediate agent (John 1:3, Col 1:16),
>something that would contradict him being the source. Him
>being the source would require 2 groups of creation, which
>there are not. And as I already highlighted, ARCH is never
>used in scripture to show source.
>(/Tony-Reply5)

Response: That is a good point however, Christ could be viewed as the ruler of God's creation. I will rethink the orignator part.

>(Tony-Reply5)
>There is no action!?!?! Then what is that pesky verb doing
>there!? There is absolutely action there.. He was
>eimi-ing.

Response: THen he would be beginnig to eimi-ing if the inceptive was the case.

The inceptive imperfect is perfectly allowable
>there, but theologically you must deny it. You have not
>given me any grammatical grounds for doing so, however, in
>light of the fact that you've already admitted that verse 10
>has one, your grounds for denying it in verse 1 have grown
>about as strong as a toothpick.

Response: actually verse 10 does not have one, I spoke to my professor today and he explained how ni light of JOhn surveying CHrist life it is a normal imperfect.
>
>>
>(Tony-Reply5)
>Yes, the GNT has no punctuation, so it does make the most
>sense that way. In light of it lacking such, we go to how
>the earliest people understood it.. specifically those who
>were native koine Greek speakers. These ones all connected
>hO GEGONEN to verse 4, and so we should do the same.
>(/Tony-Reply5)

Response: Not in light of newer and more efficient manuscripts and our ability to translate better.
>
>(Tony-Reply5)
>And you know what, bringing it up doesn't PROVE anything.
>Check this out: God is a 5 dimensional being. Guess what.
>If you just say he is 3D, and I say no he is 5D, have I
>proved something? Nope. And neither have you. I have
>demonstrated the inceptive imperfect in John 1, I have
>explained the difference between the use of HN and GINOMAI.
>You have come back with nothing more than tiresome
>repetition that completely fails to engage the points I've
>made.

Response; Ya knwo you never addressed en verses egeneto.
>(Tony-Reply5)
>Yawn... Assumptions, Assumptions, Assumptions. Let us stop
>with the eisigesis and return to exegesis please. hO
>GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN (What has came to be in him was
>life). Yes, life came to be in Christ! How much clearly can
>scripture be!?
>(/Tony-Reply5)

Response: No life was in him and the world came to be, by the way you erased en verses engeneto.
>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>99% of the Bible translations out there (all the ones that
>say "and the Word was God") are actually teaching modalism,
>since QEOS is treated definitely. Here are just a few of
>the MANY that make QEOS indefinite.

Response; No qualitative you are taknig stafford greek lessons over there, no one thinks that way but him. See ya either tonight or tomorrow
>

>
>I have been waitnig for a response to that for the entire
>thread.
>
>
>>Yet, in light of the fact that it cannot be purely
>>qualitative, because you cannot demonstrate such a count
>>noun even exists, and that it cannot be
>>qualitative-definite, because that would be modalism, the
>>only solution is that it is qualitative-indefinite, thus
>>making the NWT fit perfectly!
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: it does not have to be purely qualitative in order
>for someone to translate or even for it to mean that it is
>to be taken qualitatiely you are making up your own rules
>here.
>

(Tony-Reply6) It would have to be purely qualitative for an indefinite rendering to not be perfectly acceptable. These are not my rules, this is just basic grammar.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Wrong. Verse 14 uses GINOMAI for Christ, while verse 10
>>uses HN inceptively for him.
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: I was hoping you would say that i spoke to my
>professor today and verse 10 is not inceptive either. I was
>wrong about that as well. But more later tonight or
>tomorrow abut it. He is simply surveing Jesus life it is a
>normal imperfect.

(Tony-Reply6)
When you get stuck, what else is there to do but to change your position? I see no reason for not taking it as inceptive, because he was in the world from the point in which he entered the world.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Why? The Jews didn't seem to have a problem with it.
>
>God gets the title Father and so does Abraham. And now,
>>before you go and run and say that it isn't the same verse,
>>the Bible was not written in verses, they are a later
>>addition. It is in the very same context, they said one
>>after another. If God and Abraham can be equated on such a
>>level, so can God and Jesus.
>
>Response; Good point. I will think about that one later.
>>
>
>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>1. You ASSUME eternity is in view in verse 1. Whether or
>>not it is or isn't is not significant though. Even if it
>>is, that does not stop HN being inceptive.
>
>Response: Actually it does, there has to be some action
>began by someone for it to be inceptive.

(Tony-Reply6)
Well the verb is an eimi-verb and thus, it is the action of being. He was being in the ARCH, and he began being such. So again, no reason not to take it inceptively.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>2. And verse 4 tells us that life came to be in the son.
>
>Response: No it says life was in the Son

(Tony-Reply6)
hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4 ala the ANF and the NJB and others. It says live CAME TO BE in the Son. Who knew the punctuation better, you or the early church writers who grew up around the language?

Bible in Basic English: What came into existence in him was life, and the life was the light of men.

New Jerusalem Bible: What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>3. Verse 3 is part of the context! I would also note the
>>parallel at 1 John 1:1, which states he is "from the
>>beginning", denoting the ARCH as his source, further hinting
>>at Hn being inceptive.
>
>Respnose: No he is was he was in the beginnnign with an non
>inceptive imperfect letting pointing to his eternallity, if
>he was created engeneto would have been used.

(Tony-Reply6)
And your basis for this conclusion is what? If HN is inceptive, and I've provided good reason for it to be such, and John wanted place emphasis on his being in the state instead of entering the state, Hn would be perfect. Either way, you've yet to counter my point when I highlighted if the ARCH was 20 billion years ago and Jesus was created 25 billion years ago, HN would be used still. You assume a priori that hO LOGOS is eternal.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>4) Yes, I have. It comes down to what John wanted to
>>stress. The inceptive imperfect places greater stress on
>>the fact that he existed in the state he entered, while the
>>GINOMAI places stress on him entering the state.
>
>Response: Ginomai stresses that the world was created and
>had a starting point.

(Tony-Reply6)
EXACTLY. What did John want to stress? Did he want to stress entering the state or being in the state? If we wanted to stress entering it, he would use GINOMAI, if he wanted to stress being in it, he would use HN. That does not rule out HN being inceptive.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>(Tony-Reply5) Because God is the originator of God's
>>creation! It belongs to him, not the ARCH. Further, Jesus
>>is shown to be the intermediate agent (John 1:3, Col 1:16),
>>something that would contradict him being the source. Him
>>being the source would require 2 groups of creation, which
>>there are not. And as I already highlighted, ARCH is never
>>used in scripture to show source.
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: That is a good point however, Christ could be
>viewed as the ruler of God's creation. I will rethink the
>orignator part.

(Tony-Reply6)
If he was ruler, it would be ARCWN ala Rev. 1:5.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>There is no action!?!?! Then what is that pesky verb doing
>>there!? There is absolutely action there.. He was
>>eimi-ing.
>
>Response: THen he would be beginnig to eimi-ing if the
>inceptive was the case.

(Tony-Reply6)
Exactly. However, the emphesis here is on him being in the state of eimi-ing, not entering it.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>
> The inceptive imperfect is perfectly allowable
>>there, but theologically you must deny it. You have not
>>given me any grammatical grounds for doing so, however, in
>>light of the fact that you've already admitted that verse 10
>>has one, your grounds for denying it in verse 1 have grown
>>about as strong as a toothpick.
>
>Response: actually verse 10 does not have one, I spoke to my
>professor today and he explained how ni light of JOhn
>surveying CHrist life it is a normal imperfect.
>>

(Tony-Reply6)
I disagree, because Christ HN EN TON KOSMON once he entered into the world. From that point on, he was in it. So it is definitely inceptive. You might want to ask your professor why it is not inceptive instead of just taking his word for it, because I have yet to find a reasonable answer for why we shouldn't.
(/Tony-Reply6)



>>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Yes, the GNT has no punctuation, so it does make the most
>>sense that way. In light of it lacking such, we go to how
>>the earliest people understood it.. specifically those who
>>were native koine Greek speakers. These ones all connected
>>hO GEGONEN to verse 4, and so we should do the same.
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: Not in light of newer and more efficient
>manuscripts and our ability to translate better.

(Tony-Reply6)
Wrong. The MSS have zero punctuation and no word breaks. The early church writers, who wrote, spoke and lived the language knew where hO GEGONEN went, and they all placed it with verse 4. They knew the language better than even the best scholars today.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>And you know what, bringing it up doesn't PROVE anything.
>>Check this out: God is a 5 dimensional being. Guess what.
>>If you just say he is 3D, and I say no he is 5D, have I
>>proved something? Nope. And neither have you. I have
>>demonstrated the inceptive imperfect in John 1, I have
>>explained the difference between the use of HN and GINOMAI.
>>You have come back with nothing more than tiresome
>>repetition that completely fails to engage the points I've
>>made.
>
>Response; Ya knwo you never addressed en verses egeneto.

(Tony-Reply6)
I have multiple times now, you just keep ignoring it. HN stresses entering the state, GINOMAI stresses entering the state. If HN is inceptive, it still stress being in the state, but only being in the state once it is entered.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Yawn... Assumptions, Assumptions, Assumptions. Let us stop
>>with the eisigesis and return to exegesis please. hO
>>GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN (What has came to be in him was
>>life). Yes, life came to be in Christ! How much clearly can
>>scripture be!?
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: No life was in him and the world came to be, by
>the way you erased en verses engeneto.

(Tony-Reply6)
Already addressed. Life Came to BE in Him.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>99% of the Bible translations out there (all the ones that
>>say "and the Word was God") are actually teaching modalism,
>>since QEOS is treated definitely. Here are just a few of
>>the MANY that make QEOS indefinite.
>
>Response; No qualitative you are taknig stafford greek
>lessons over there, no one thinks that way but him. See ya
>either tonight or tomorrow
>>

(Tony-Reply6)
"the Word was God" is absolutely a definite translation. It is not qualitative, for "God" here is used with the semantic force of a proper name! How much for definite can it be!?!? That is modalism my friend, not a qualitative translation.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>
>(Tony-Reply6) It would have to be purely qualitative for an
>indefinite rendering to not be perfectly acceptable. These
>are not my rules, this is just basic grammar.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Well tony if a count nouns can be used in a qualitative sense without distorting or valilating any rules then it is perfectly acceptable for a qualitative rendering. Unless you can prove that there is grammaticle difficulties with such a rendering and prove that it is not possible for Greek to do this, then my view is fine. And indefinite rendering is ok, however it is not in line with the context of the passage itself.
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>When you get stuck, what else is there to do but to change
>your position? I see no reason for not taking it as
>inceptive, because he was in the world from the point in
>which he entered the world.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Well that is not what John is saying or trying to illustrate here. In verse 9 he is the one coming into the world, the erkomenon. That is the point where he entered, in verse 10 John is simply sureveing Christ while he was on earth, simply saying that he was here. If we take an inceptive interpretation it would read "and he began in the earth" he began what?

An inceptive is illustrating someone beginnig to do action, the action of coming into the world is already done, and verse 10 just points out what Christ did, he was in the earth. Wallace notes on page 544...

The ingressive imperfect is especially used in narrative literature when a CHANGE in activity is noted... but the context in each instance indicates a topic shift or new direction for the action.

An example would be Matt 3:5 "then Jerusalem *began* going out to him. Now tone does this look like JOhn 1:1?

By definition, the imperfect is often used to stress the beginning of an action. In verse 10 what did Christ begin?
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>Well the verb is an eimi-verb and thus, it is the action of
>being. He was being in the ARCH, and he began being such.
>So again, no reason not to take it inceptively.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: That makes no sense, so you are saying that Christ began being? I think that is the wildest statment that you have said yet?

In the beginning the word began being and the word was with God...

that is nonsense. You are totally reading your theology into this text.
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4 ala the ANF and the NJB and
>others. It says live CAME TO BE in the Son. Who knew the
>punctuation better, you or the early church writers who grew
>up around the language?

Response: It appears to me that ho gegonen is a relative clause as opposed to a nominative article, well at least that the way it is accented in my GNT. Don't know bout the others. So it should be translated as "that which came into being..." it would fit better with the previous clause then.
>(Tony-Reply6)
>And your basis for this conclusion is what?

Response:Because as I have pointed out, everything that is created JOhn juses egeneto in the verse. Notice verse 6

egeneto anthropos. There was a man... John applies egeneto to John because he is created. In verse 10 ho kosmos di autou egeneto. The world through him became...

everything that was created John uses egeneto, for Jesus he uses en. i.e. vv 1:1, 1:2; 1:4; 1:10 etc.

If HN is
>inceptive, and I've provided good reason for it to be such,
>and John wanted place emphasis on his being in the state
>instead of entering the state, Hn would be perfect.

Response: IN the beginning teh word entered a state of being? Sound good to you?

Either
>way, you've yet to counter my point when I highlighted if
>the ARCH was 20 billion years ago and Jesus was created 25
>billion years ago, HN would be used still. You assume a
>priori that hO LOGOS is eternal.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Well that is not what JOhn was saying at all, sorry.
>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>EXACTLY. What did John want to stress? Did he want to
>stress entering the state or being in the state? If we
>wanted to stress entering it, he would use GINOMAI, if he
>wanted to stress being in it, he would use HN. That does
>not rule out HN being inceptive.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: He wanted to stress that the world became at a specific point that is why egeneto is used. Again for it to be inceptive it would have to show that the creation began doing some sort of action.

>(Tony-Reply6)
>If he was ruler, it would be ARCWN ala Rev. 1:5.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: That is nonsense one is just feminine and the other masculine that is not a good arguement.
>
>>>(Tony-Reply6)
>Exactly. However, the emphesis here is on him being in the
>state of eimi-ing, not entering it.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: here is another example of an inceptive Toney I think you are confused.

Mark 9:20 He fell on the ground and began rolling about, foaming at the mouth.

Notice a change he began to do something, now does this look like John 1:1?
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>I disagree, because Christ HN EN TON KOSMON once he entered
>into the world. From that point on, he was in it. So it is
>definitely inceptive. You might want to ask your professor
>why it is not inceptive instead of just taking his word for
>it, because I have yet to find a reasonable answer for why
>we shouldn't.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: John is not discussign when the logos entered in the world he is just surveying his minstry, he was here, that's all.
>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>Wrong. The MSS have zero punctuation and no word breaks.
>The early church writers, who wrote, spoke and lived the
>language knew where hO GEGONEN went, and they all placed it
>with verse 4. They knew the language better than even the
>best scholars today.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: again I see it as a relative clause, not the nominative article.
>(Tony-Reply6)
>I have multiple times now, you just keep ignoring it. HN
>stresses entering the state, GINOMAI stresses entering the
>state. If HN is inceptive, it still stress being in the
>state, but only being in the state once it is entered.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: ginomai has nothing to do with egeneto verses en, John compares the two all through the first 18 verses. You must not know what I am saying.
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>Already addressed. Life Came to BE in Him.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Uh it is more than that. He only uses en for the logos in the entire 18 verses then egeneto for everything else.
>

>>
>>(Tony-Reply6) It would have to be purely qualitative for an
>>indefinite rendering to not be perfectly acceptable. These
>>are not my rules, this is just basic grammar.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: Well tony if a count nouns can be used in a
>qualitative sense without distorting or valilating any rules
>then it is perfectly acceptable for a qualitative rendering.
> Unless you can prove that there is grammaticle difficulties
>with such a rendering and prove that it is not possible for
>Greek to do this, then my view is fine. And indefinite
>rendering is ok, however it is not in line with the context
>of the passage itself.

(Tony-Reply7) Again, you've missed it. QEOS is a count noun! A count noun can ALWAYS be made definite or indefinite. If you want a purely qualitative rendering here (that is not definite or indefinite) you must demonstrate that the noun is PURELY qualitative. Until you do that, you don't have a leg to stand on. (/Tony-Reply7)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>When you get stuck, what else is there to do but to change
>>your position? I see no reason for not taking it as
>>inceptive, because he was in the world from the point in
>>which he entered the world.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: Well that is not what John is saying or trying to
>illustrate here. In verse 9 he is the one coming into the
>world, the erkomenon. That is the point where he entered,
>in verse 10 John is simply sureveing Christ while he was on
>earth, simply saying that he was here. If we take an
>inceptive interpretation it would read "and he began in the
>earth" he began what?

(Tony-Reply7)
You really don't know Greek do you? Let us look at John 1:9
Who is the subject? TO FOS TO ALHQINON (The True Light) is the subject. All in the nominative case.

The object is PANTA ANQRWPON ERCOMENON (every man coming) is the predicate. I should have looked at 9 earlier instead of just taking your word for it on being about Jesus coming, because it is not at all. It is about men coming in to the world being lit by Jesus.

Verse 10 has Christ in the world. If it is not inceptive, when did Christ enter the world? Just like John 1:1. Isn't that interesting.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>
>An inceptive is illustrating someone beginnig to do action,
>the action of coming into the world is already done, and
>verse 10 just points out what Christ did, he was in the
>earth. Wallace notes on page 544...
>
>The ingressive imperfect is especially used in narrative
>literature when a CHANGE in activity is noted... but the
>context in each instance indicates a topic shift or new
>direction for the action.
>
>An example would be Matt 3:5 "then Jerusalem *began* going
>out to him. Now tone does this look like JOhn 1:1?
>
>By definition, the imperfect is often used to stress the
>beginning of an action. In verse 10 what did Christ begin?

(Tony-Reply7)Being in the world!
(/Tony-Reply7)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>Well the verb is an eimi-verb and thus, it is the action of
>>being. He was being in the ARCH, and he began being such.
>>So again, no reason not to take it inceptively.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: That makes no sense, so you are saying that Christ
>began being? I think that is the wildest statment that you
>have said yet?

(Tony-Reply7)
Well, to anyone who knows basic Greek, they know HN is a form of eimi, which is to-be. EIMI is basically synonymous with exist, or be. Thus, if you enter into the state of EIMI, you enter into the state of being. You thus begin being!
(/Tony-Reply7)


>
>In the beginning the word began being and the word was with
>God...
>
>that is nonsense. You are totally reading your theology
>into this text.

(Tony-Reply7)
It has nothing to do with theology, it is simply taking HN as inceptive, ala verse 10. I wouldn't translate it that way however. "was" is perfectly acceptable to me.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4 ala the ANF and the NJB and
>>others. It says live CAME TO BE in the Son. Who knew the
>>punctuation better, you or the early church writers who grew
>>up around the language?
>
>Response: It appears to me that ho gegonen is a relative
>clause as opposed to a nominative article, well at least
>that the way it is accented in my GNT. Don't know bout the
>others. So it should be translated as "that which came into
>being..." it would fit better with the previous clause then.


(Tony-Reply7)
Well, the UBS4 committee doesn't agree with you.

They write:
"Should the word hO GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.

"A majority of the Committe wase impressed by the consensus of ante-Necene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took hO GEGONEN with what follow...

"The punctuation adopted for the text is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or "staircase" parallelism seems to demand that the end of one like should match the beginning of the next. "

Obviously the NA27 Critical Greek NT does not either, for they place a full stop before hO GEGONEN. I have posted additional evidence in other posts as well.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>And your basis for this conclusion is what?
>
>Response:Because as I have pointed out, everything that is
>created JOhn juses egeneto in the verse. Notice verse 6
>
>egeneto anthropos. There was a man... John applies egeneto
>to John because he is created. In verse 10 ho kosmos di
>autou egeneto. The world through him became...
>
>everything that was created John uses egeneto, for Jesus he
>uses en. i.e. vv 1:1, 1:2; 1:4; 1:10 etc.

(Tony-Reply7)
Again, because this is what John wanted to stresssssssssssssss. GINOMAI places stress on one element, while HN, if inceptive, places stress on another element. One is the coming to be, the other is existing in the state.
(/Tony-Reply7)


>
>If HN is
>>inceptive, and I've provided good reason for it to be such,
>>and John wanted place emphasis on his being in the state
>>instead of entering the state, Hn would be perfect.
>
>Response: IN the beginning teh word entered a state of
>being? Sound good to you?

(Tony-Reply7)
I would not translate it that way, but that would be the point. I would translate it just as the modern translations do today.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>
> Either
>>way, you've yet to counter my point when I highlighted if
>>the ARCH was 20 billion years ago and Jesus was created 25
>>billion years ago, HN would be used still. You assume a
>>priori that hO LOGOS is eternal.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: Well that is not what JOhn was saying at all,
>sorry.

(Tony-Reply7)
Ahh.. But how do you know? Are you psychic? See, if HN is not inceptive, then in terms of existence before the ARCH, the text does not say. You only assume.
(/Tony-Reply7)


>>
>>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>EXACTLY. What did John want to stress? Did he want to
>>stress entering the state or being in the state? If we
>>wanted to stress entering it, he would use GINOMAI, if he
>>wanted to stress being in it, he would use HN. That does
>>not rule out HN being inceptive.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: He wanted to stress that the world became at a
>specific point that is why egeneto is used. Again for it to
>be inceptive it would have to show that the creation began
>doing some sort of action.

(Tony-Reply7)
HN is a form of EIMI, a verb, an action. So, it does show an action.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>If he was ruler, it would be ARCWN ala Rev. 1:5.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: That is nonsense one is just feminine and the
>other masculine that is not a good arguement.

(Tony-Reply7)
Another classic case of not know Greek. ARCWN is not ARCH at all and it is in fact masculine! I suggest you break open a lexicon and start checking your facts, you're really starting to make yourself look bad.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>>
>>>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>Exactly. However, the emphesis here is on him being in the
>>state of eimi-ing, not entering it.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: here is another example of an inceptive Toney I
>think you are confused.
>
>Mark 9:20 He fell on the ground and began rolling about,
>foaming at the mouth.
>
>Notice a change he began to do something, now does this look
>like John 1:1?

(Tony-Reply7)
There is that EIMI in John 1:1. A verb, an action! He began EIMI-ing!
(/Tony-Reply7)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>I disagree, because Christ HN EN TON KOSMON once he entered
>>into the world. From that point on, he was in it. So it is
>>definitely inceptive. You might want to ask your professor
>>why it is not inceptive instead of just taking his word for
>>it, because I have yet to find a reasonable answer for why
>>we shouldn't.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: John is not discussign when the logos entered in
>the world he is just surveying his minstry, he was here,
>that's all.

(Tony-Reply7)
I did not say he was discussing when, but he is discussing the fact that he DID enter the world. When did he enter the world? When he first WAS in it. Hence, HN is inceptive.
(/Tony-Reply7)


>>
>>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>Wrong. The MSS have zero punctuation and no word breaks.
>>The early church writers, who wrote, spoke and lived the
>>language knew where hO GEGONEN went, and they all placed it
>>with verse 4. They knew the language better than even the
>>best scholars today.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: again I see it as a relative clause, not the
>nominative article.

(Tony-Reply7)
Nice opinion again.. still hasn't delt with all the evidence stacked up against you.
(/Tony-Reply7)

>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>I have multiple times now, you just keep ignoring it. HN
>>stresses entering the state, GINOMAI stresses entering the
>>state. If HN is inceptive, it still stress being in the
>>state, but only being in the state once it is entered.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: ginomai has nothing to do with egeneto verses en,
>John compares the two all through the first 18 verses. You
>must not know what I am saying.

(Tony-Reply7)
LOL. GINOMAI IS EGENETO! EGENENTO is the aorist 3rd person middle of GINOMAI. Sheesh. Again, back to Greek 101!
(/Tony-Reply7)



>>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>>Already addressed. Life Came to BE in Him.
>>(/Tony-Reply6)
>
>Response: Uh it is more than that. He only uses en for the
>logos in the entire 18 verses then egeneto for everything
>else.

(Tony-Reply7)
Wrong, he uses GINOMAI in verse 14 for him.
(/Tony-Reply7)

Clearly Osoclasi, you simply don't know Greek. You are making mistakes that a first year Greek student should not even be making, like mixing up the subject and the object, etc, etc.

Regards,
Tony