|
>The following is an overview of what transpired during this >discussion (while I was here). Hopefully it helps everyone >get a picture for what happened.
Response And to ensure that happens I decided to give my side of the story. > >John 1- HN (was) >Osoclasi argued that the Greek imperfect verb HN (translated >to was) denotes eternal pre-existence. However, this claim >was immediately found without basis. I pointed out that the >only thing it denoted, if we take it as he argued, was that >the word was in existence at the beginning. Whether he was >eternally there prior or there for 5 minutes prior, the text >did not say, but simply that it was there.
Response: That is correct, it denotes that the word was in the beginning, wherever the beginning was the word was there, so it does not matter where it was. The question that I have is how else could John expressed the eternality of the word other than this? By the way an imperfect denotes a *continuous action in the past* Sort of if I said, *I was eating* , it denotes an action that is continious but past tense.
So when John said the word *was*.. he was saying the word already existed, from my view point. > >However, I pointed out that I viewed HN as inceptive. This >means that instead of him already being in existence, the >verb shows him coming into being and then continuing >forward. He denied this as a possible meaning, arguing that >verse 3 speaks of things coming into being through Christ. >The difference of course is that the inceptive use of HN has >Christ coming into being and continuing forward in that >state, where the other use (in verse 3) simply is in >reference of creation being created).
Response: The only problem with this arguement is that there is no reason not to take *hen* as it is normally used. I gave Tony this qoute from Wallace it said
"the ingressive (inceptive)is especially used in narratives literature when a *change* in activity is noted. It is possible the most common imperfect in narrative because it introduces a topic shift..."
In John 1:1 there is no topic shift, it is the first line of the gospel so the topic is just geting started. So why would'nt the normal use of the imperfect not be used? What he does is jump to another verse to make this accusation. Although for something to be inceptive there has to be a topic shift prior to the use of the imperfects.
> >I highlighted 1 John 1:1 several times, where it says Christ >is "from the beginning". His being from it denotes the >beginning as his origin, further highlighting the inceptive >use. Osoclasi did not reply once to this.
Response: Actually I must have over look this one, or I just did not see the 1 in front of John.(sorry) So I will address this now, I don't think it is hurting my position at all. Let's look
" What was from the beginning, what we have heard what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the Word of Life."
Funny, Tony does not take an inceptive translation to this verse. He says that Christ was from the beginning.
ho hen ar arches o akekoamen
Why does he not say that Christ began from the beginning? ( because it would not make sense) The hen here is the same as the hen in John 1:1, well maybe he did and I overlooked the arguement, but again if the normal use of hen is in view( since there is no change in narration) then this verse does not hurt us.
Because the same rules apply, Christ was from the beginning should mean "what already existed from the beginning." Hen functions as a continuous existance in the past, Christ already was there, so no matter where teh begninng was he was there.
>I then went on to argue that John 1:10's use of HN ("He was >in the world") was inceptive. Initially Osoclasi conceded >this point, but after speaking to his Greek professor, >changed his story. I then demonstrated that HN can indeed >be taken inceptively here, providing three Bible >translations that render it in such a way.
Response: That is correct, but most translators including the NWT do not translate that way. Although I am assuming that Tony is a JW. > >Osoclasi argued that John 1:10 could not be inceptive >because John had Christ (as the True Light) coming into >the world, so in verse 10 he was already there. Initially I >argued this point because the verse can be translated two >very different ways. After doing some further study, >however, and considering Osoclasi's point, I decided that >indeed the translation he was arguing for was correct. >However, this did not help his position, because the verse >did not yet have Christ in the world, but it had him in line >to come to the world. Usually it is translated as "coming", >making to how Christ is about to come into the world. Thus, >verse 10 has Christ arriving and being in the world, making >it the perfect candidate for HN to be inceptive.
Response: Tony did not list my arguement for this one, so I will supply it now. Now he agrees with my translation in verse 9, Christ is the one coming into the world. But remember our use of an inceptive, there must be a *change in the narration* but there is not. The topic is still the same, so since he agrees with me about verse 9, then he must illustrate that the topic has changed and show why.
> >Finally, we discussed whether or not the finally clause of >verse 3 (hO GEGONEN) belonged to verse 3 or verse 4. We >noted that the early church writers were consistent in >applying it to verse 4. Further, I noted several scholars, >including A.T. Robertson who noted that it belonged to verse >4. Osoclasi replied with a scholarly quote of his own, but >failed to notice the poetic form of stair step parallelism. >The evidence clearly points to it belonging to verse 4.
Response: That is true most church Father did agree with Tony's view and A.T. Roberts, however, we must remember that the original manuscripts did not have verses, so it is entirely possible for some of the verses to be misplaced. I would argue some even today are misplaced. I saw the stair step arguement but was unconviced, because I view John's gospel as a bookend, meaning what is first stated in the beginning gets repeated in the end (verse 18). THe problem I see with Tony's view is
1. He reads it back into verse one.
2. When you translate it with verse 4 it does not make much sense. My personal translation came out like this.
That which came into being - in it was life
Noting that the original did not have verses we see that this translation does not make sense, now if Tony is able to make this make sense more power to him. Now compare the normal translation.
all things are came into being through him and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Makes senes to me. > >Wisdom- Male or Female? >When I came to the thread, Osoclasi objected to Wisdom in >Proverbs 8 being Christ. His objection was based on the >fact that Wisdom is reference to as a Woman. Osoclasi >failed to realize that this was not a choice in gender, but >a grammatical requirement. In Hebrew, as in Greek, nouns >have gender. In Hebrew, the noun for Wisdom is chokmah, >which is feminine. A feminine noun (unless the noun is >being applied to a masculine subject that is identified >within the context) requires a feminine pronoun. This is >way Wisdom is called a she. Solomon did not choose to make >Wisdom a female, but it was a grammatical requirement. >Osoclasi did not understand this point at all, so he >continued to run circles, trying to avoid it.
Response; Tony once again did not tell my side of the story, I noted that wisdom is being personified. People are either women or men, no other option. Since, Solomon is discussing wisdom as a person, he described wisdom as a she. Not simply because of grammer, although I will note that he is correct in regards to grammer. In other words Solomon intinitally makes wisdom to be a person, a woman, in order to illustrate the point. Since we know that this is a specific genre (poetry) we must keep this in mind when it is time to interprete it correctly. > >I then pointed out that in verse 30, Wisdom is called a >master worker (or little child, depending on the >translation), with the Hebrew word AMON. The interesting >thing is that this word has both a masculine and feminine >gender, with AMON being masculine and AMONAH being feminine. > Osoclasi argued that Wisdom was being compared to a master >worker, and so this did not matter. However, I pointed out >that this is not what is stated in Hebrew at all, so he >dropped that point. I then pointed out that the only reason >AMON (masculine) would be used instead of AMONAH (feminine) >was if the natural (not grammatical) gender was masculine. >If Wisdom was literally a female (not just a feminine noun), >AMONAH would be used. If Wisdom was actually a male, AMON >would be. From this Osoclasi noted that a feminine or >masculine noun can be applied to someone of the opposite >gender. This is true, for example, when Solomon is called >the congregator, which in Hebrew is feminine. The problem >is, this does not help his point in cases where the word can >be either gender. He could not address these points, so he >simply denied it, even after I quoted to him a personal >friend on the matter who has taught Hebrew for 10 years. >Therefore, the point was unaddressed.
Response: Actually I told Tony that I would do the responsible thing and ask my Hebrew professor, and then I went on to explain in my opinion wisdom is not *called* amon. In order to be called something someone else has to call you something. Wisdom says that it was as a master worker. Notice in your bible the translators supply *as* to the text, because it is not there in the Hebrew. But is supplied to illustrate that wisdom's job in creation was like that of a master worker, gender does not matter from my viewpoint, it is simply a comparision. > >I further pointed out that the early church writers nearly >universally attributed Christ to being Wisdom in Proverbs 8, >as did many of the protestant reformers.
Response: That is correct, but alot of the church fathers did was read the NT back into the old, meaning they would interprete New Testament passages and read them into the Old, that is not how we do it today, (well some reformers do in eschatology) now we look for the authors intent and notice context along with genre then we interprete, the Old Test should be able to stand on it's own and the NT be harmonized with it. > >Osoclasi further argued that Jesus was not Wisdom, based on >a contextual argument. However, we noted that 1 Cor. 1:24 >does not have any contextual limitation and simply calls >Christ "the Wisdom of God".
Response: Let me stop Tony here, for Paul is calling Christ wisdom to salvation. Open your bibles and trun to 1 Cor 1:10, Paul starts off discusssing divisions in the church, he notes that he and appollos were both servants of God. He then goes on to note that he never baptized anyone. (notice proverbs 8 is never mentioned)Christ did not send him to baptise but to preach.
Now verse 18 Paul constrast earthly wisdom and foolishness (this is where wisdom comes in). For the cross is foolish to those who hear about it.
In verse 20 Paul ask where is the *wise* man (paul is using sacasim) he is playing on the word wise. Notice proverbs 8 is no where mentioned, but rather the only wisdom Paul is discussing is human wisdom. WHere is the scribe. In verse 22 he says the Jews seek for signs and the Greeks search for wisdom, but Christ is a stumbling block to for Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but for those who are called he is wisdom of God. i.e. salvation, those who are called understand what Christ did. Paul is nowhere near discussing Proverbs 8, one is forced to look at the word wisdom and pour it into Proverbs 8, for in Proverbs wisdom is personified inorder for one to gain it for living a godly life.
This shows us that even though one may know the language if context is ignored then all meaning is loss.
This is not limited to any >context, but who he is. He then tried to argue that Christ >would have to be the attribute of Wisdom, which I pointed >out was not only impossible due to common sense (a person is >not an attribute, but a person personifies an attribute), >but also because, as Col 2:3 points out, Christ HAS wisdom, >and to his disciples, Christ BECAME Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:30).
Response: Notice Tony's strategy, no exegesis offered, no context offered. I already explained 1 Cor to you, and Col 2:3 is comparing Jesus to proto gnosticism which stressed one possesing secrete wisdom, Paul rebuttals this by showing us that Christ contains all wisdom within himself. Again, context is Tony's mistake.
> >Revelation 3:14 >I pointed out to Osoclasi that Revelation 3:14, according to >BDAG, has the "probable" meaning of "first-created". He >initially argued for the meaning of origin or source. I >highlighted that this was impossible, for Christ is not the >source, but he is the intermediate agent in create as >pointed out at John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16. He conceeded >this point. Then he tried to argue that God was intermediate >agent at Romans 11:36. However, I pointed out from BDAG that >the use here was not as an intermediate agent, which he >again conceeded. He then argued for "ruler" as the >translation.
Response; Tony did very well here, he showed me some things wrong with my view. Let's continue. > >After I demonstrated that ruler was not probable, because it >is not used in such a way, I showed that ARCWN was the word >normally used for such, as demonstrated at Rev 1:5. >Osoclasi was unable to overcome the statistical evidence >against his position, and so he basically fell into denial. > Eventually he returned to viewing it as origin or source, >though he gave no basis for his returning to that view. >Evidentially, it was because he knew the weight was against >him on "ruler", so he tried to craftily work his way around >the fact that Christ is intermediate agent. Still, even >could not get around the fact that scripture never once uses >the word to mean originator or source as he argued.
Response: Tony did not fill you in on teh end of the story. I pointed out that Wallace says that Rev 3:14 should be viewed as a subjective genitive. Meanign that is should be read as God' creation beginning, or God's creation beginner. Tony brushed it off and said Wallace's (who he uses) theology must have gotten in the way. Taht is fine, sometimes well meaning scholars fall into this trap. However, TOny went on to argue that Rev 3:14 should be viewed as a partitive. Which says Christ is part of the creation. However, one cannot be the beginning of a part.
See a partitive idea would be *one of the Pharisees* or *trees of the forest*. For Rev 3:14 to be partitive it would have to be *one of the creation* Meaning part of the creation, not the beginning of it, becuase beginnings don't share parts.
See in a partitive the actually genitive has to be part of something, saying that this is partive would mean that the beginning was part of other beginnings. So the subjective genititve seems to fit best.
Tony asked me to provide another reference to arch (beginnig) not being used as a partitive, I pointed to Mark 1:1. *The beginning of the gospel..." He says this is also a partitive, but and linked it to Mark 1:2 and the prophets. But as I noted, the genitive has to be part of something, so the beginning would have to be part of the prophets, and that makes no sense. Well at least not to me. > >The Holy Spirit >Several messages had been posted on the holy spirit when I >came. I relied by quoting from an article written by Daniel >Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. This article >refuted his use of Acts 5 in an attempt to prove that the >holy spirit is God and it also refuted his effort to use >personal verbs to prove the holy spirit was a person (I also >quoted a few verses from Jewish literature that demonstrated >impersonal things being assigned personal verbs). >Osoclasi never responded.
Respnse: At the time when Tony posted this argument I was in the mist of several other arguements at the same time, I still have not read the entire article, I glanced at it, but never read it, why, because there were a million things to respond to. And everyone was saying "Oso has no answer to my one post here!!!"
Never once realizing that I was swamped with replies. But that is life. > >New World Translation >Osoclasi had made issue of the names of the NWT translators >not having been released. I pointed out that this was a >common practice and that for many years the NASB translators >were not know, and even to this day how the names of the >translators of The Christian Bible are not know. Osoclasi >never replied.
Response: Tony is under the impression that he is the only one talking to me, and I had all the time in the world to reply to everysingle one of his post. I would invite anyone to note that under Tony's name when he post, there are 80 plus post that he has done since May 25. Now if you take his number and add oh about 4 more people that is over 150 post that I was suppose to answer to at one time. Hence that is why I was asking people to be patient and realize that I can't be on line all day. I am in school, work, and have a wife and kid.
The difference between our bibles and the watchtower's is that one can gain accesss to who translated our bibles,all one has to do is contact them. However, with the watchtower poeple have asked them to reveal there translators and they tell us that they were to humble to tell us. They have been taken to court, and still no answer, now if has never been that serious for our bibles, all you have to do is ask, send a letter, not so with the watch tower. > > >John 20:28 >There was some minor discussion on John 20:28, but nothing >significant. I pointed out that 1 Samuel 20:12 might be >considered a parallel in that Jonathan addresses David, but >actually speaks to Jehovah. Yet, I highlighted that >whatever the case, calling Jesus God is not an issue for >Jehovah's Witnesses, for we view him as a god.
Resposne: I responded by saying Johnathon never added personal pronouns when addressing David. He did not say My Lord to David, there would be a hireq if he were calling him my Lord, so these verese are different. > >Hebrews 1:3 – Jesus as a Reproduction of God >Additionally, we discussed Hebrews 1:3. I pointed out the >meaning of CARAKTHR (copy, reproduction) and hUPOSTASIS >(being).
Response: Tony left out the part where it says that carakthr is a representation as well.
I then highlighted that Jesus is said to be a copy >of God's being. This defeats Trinitarianism on two grounds: >1) a copy is always temporally distinct from the original, >thus showing that the two are not co-eternal.
Response: Tony must have forgotten to note that it says in italize at the bottom of the defintion
"an exact representation of (God's) real being." Oh well, he must be busy or something.
2) If you >copy something, you have two. That would mean there are two >beings. Trinitarians believe God exists as three persons in >one being. Thus, if Jesus and God are two beings, this >contradicts Trinitarianism. Osoclasi's objection was that >God can't copy himself. of course, to this we must ask, who >is Osoclasi to limit what God is capable of doing? There >was no scriptural basis for this assertion.
Response: Well if God copied himself that would mean there were two gods, now and there goes monotheism, becuase there would be two ominscent, omnipresent beings floating around, I wonder how to beings can omnipresent at the same time, they must run into each other alot. > >Osoclasi then went on to argue that this would make two >gods. I highlighted Psalms 8:5 where angels are called >gods, Psalms 82:6 where judges are called gods and Psalms >136:2 where Jehovah is called the God of the gods. >Obviously then, many receive the title God.
Response: The problem with tis arguement is that these so-called gods are not the exact representation of God's being. So they are not even in the same class as Jesus, nor are they copies of his being.
Osoclasi >objected, citing Isaiah 44 where Jehovah says that he alone >is God.
Response: Actually I cited Isaiah 40-44.
I highlighted that this is contextually limited to >God vs the idols. I demonstrated this, but citing that >Jehovah says he is the only savior, yet in the book of >Judges, Ehud is called savior. Either this is a >contradiction and God is a liar, or the passage is >contextually limited. Obviously it is contextually limited. > Osoclasi denied this, arguing that Ehud is not really a >savior. However, there was no way for him to escape the >fact that Ehud is called a savior.
Response: Well Tony is part right, but the text that is contexually limited is Judges not Isaiah, for even though Ehud saved Israel he did so with God's power, not his own, so he is not a savior in the same sense God is. In Isa God is the only savior in the ultimate sense, no one is saved without him. Ehud is only a savior to teh Israelites, with God's help. So God is the only savior in the ultimate sense, no one is a the same type of Savior as he. Context is limited in Judges not Isaiah. >
See I don't mind this, it is just when I get a million post to respond to in one hour that I get annoyed and burned out. Tony if you like to keep discussing let's keep to this post. Georg can join, as long as he keeps it to one post as well. But I must warn you that I am planning to upgrade my desk top and my memory, but I don't know when my wife is going to buy it for me(it is my birthday present) she said sometime next week, so if I disapear for awhile just simply slip it into my inbox and hopefully I can get this bad boy back up and running in about 2 weeks, sorry bout that, but I think I got a virus. But I plan to be in and out throughout the week,(not everyday) but tomorrow is the holiday, so I might be here tomorrow, but sometime during the week I may be in. Until I get my computer together.
------------ En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos
|