>>
>>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..