Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectnot at all..
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=693&mesg_id=770
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