>>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.