770, not at all.. Posted by guest, Fri May-28-04 04:34 PM
> >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
|