>>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.

Tony-Reply: But of course, nobody would argue that he was continually eating in the past. Rather, how long into the past he was eating is simply undefined. He could have been eternally eating, but he could have been only eating for 5 minutes. The text does not say, so Osoclasi is using something ambiguous and trying to form an argument from it.


>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: Notice that it is only "especially used" in narratives. It is not always used in such, as Osoclasi later argues (as you will see below). By attempting to limit the inceptive imperfect to ONLY narratives, Osoclasi is trying to make it look as though it cannot be, because in such places it does introduce "a topic shift or new direction for the action."


>
>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: Of course here Osoclasi completely fails to engage the argument that I had presented. The issue is the use of APO, which is translated from. HN certainly could be used inceptively here, stating "What has come to be from the beginning..", but that is not where the argument rests. What he does not note is that APO (from) often denotes a going out from ones origin or source. Temporally, if the ARCH (beginning) is when Jesus is from, which this verse indicates IMO, that would point to an inceptive use of HN.

>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: In an english translation, the rendering "was" is actually ambiguous. So it can be considered an inceptive translation. Several translations take it a step further though, and make it even clearer.

>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: Here was see Osoclasi misrepresent Wallace. Osoclasi says, "the must be a *change in narration*." Yet, we note that Wallace did not ever argue that the inceptive imperfect is ONLY used in narration, but that it is "especially used" there.

>
>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: Igoring the scholarly quotes and the early church fathers, if we don't place hO GEGONEN with verse 4, it completely destroyes the stair step parallelism that John used in these verses. In order to maintain that, it must go with 4.

>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: In order for Osoclasi to even begin to formulate an argument he must explain how Solomon would overcome the grammarical requirements of Hebrew for Wisdom to be a female and make it a male. I await such a demonstration.


>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: A person can identify themselves as something. I am a programmer. I was working with him as a programmer. See, I still use "as" but it is stating what I am.. that I am a programmer. Osoclasi has actually misrepresented his "as" argument here, in that he was originally saying that Wisdom was being compared to a master worker. However, I pointed out that this is not stated with the Hebrew text at all, and I showed him what would have been stated. Thus, he dropped this argument. So the question remains, why does it say AMON and not AMONAH?

>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: As any Bible reader can tell, 1 Cor. 1:24 does not call Jesus "the Wisdom to salvation" he calls him "the Wisdom of God." Now how can "the Wisdom of God" be limited? I don't believe it can.

>
>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.
>

Tony-Reply: Seems to me that Osoclasi is attempting to change the plain meaning of what Paul states. To Christians, who recognize Christ as who he is, he is the Wisdom of God. Recognizing him as such results in salvation, but he is not the Wisdom of God in some type of limited context. In him all the treasures of Wisdom dwell (Col 2:3), not simply the treasures of Wisdom to salvation.


> 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.
>

Tony-Reply: The context isn't changing anything. You are attempting to redefine terms. For example, instead of "the wisdom of God" are you redefining it to "the wisdom to salvation".

>>
>>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.
>

Tony-Reply: Let us see if this olds true in scripture:

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Here Ruben is called the ARCH (beginning or first) of his children. This is partitive, for Ruben was the first one of his children.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first of his children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs the birthright.

Same here... first of the children.

Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Here Israel is the first or beginning part of his increase. Certainly Israel, as the beginning of it, is part of the increase as a whole.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among the months of the year.

Certainly here the "beginning of months" is a month, so it is part of the collective whole of "months."

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever.

Certainly fearing God is part of what wisdom is, but it is not all of it.

Matthew 24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (PANTA DE TOUTA ARCH WDINWN).

Certainly these are birth pangs, but they are only part of the group of birth pangs.

I could go on... But obviously scripture does not support Osoclasi's argument.

>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-Reply: As I demonstrated, there are plenty of examples of partitive genitives where ARCH is used.

>
>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.

Tony-Reply: It made perfect sense, for the beginning of the gospel of Christ is what the prophets wrote, which is about John the Baptist!

>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: This does not deal with the arguments presented. There are other Bible translation teams that will not release their names either. As I pointed out, for many years this was true of the NASB. To this day, it remains true for The Christian Bible. There are others as well.

>>
>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: That would not make sense either, for you don't use a personal pronoun in the genitive with a proper name. In 1 sam 20:12 KURIOS has the semantic force of a proper name, because it is translated from YHWH.

>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: Still doesn't help him, because then he is still not the same being as God, but only one representing that being. Further though, a representation is produced, as BDAG highlights.

>
> 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.

Tony-Reply: And Osoclasi is forgetting that this continues to destroy his position.

>
> 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.

Tony-Reply: Hopeless conjecture in an attempt to overcome what the verse simply says.

>>
>>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.

Tony-Reply: While I will grant this as true, it does not overcome what Hebrews 1:3 says.

>
> 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.

Tony-Reply: This still places a contexual limitation on Isaiah, for then everything said there is only in the ultimate sense. God is only a God in the ultimate sense of being eternal and the source of everything. Christ is still a copy of God's being according to Hebrews 1:3. No matter how Osoclasi tries to spin it, he is still placing a type of contextual limitation on 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.

Tony-Reply: You mentioned you were getting a lot of popups. I would suggest going to download.com and downloading ad aware. It is free and will take care of that stuff for you.

Regards,
Tony