|
>>Reply: Actually, I'm not talking about that at all. That >>was just a side point. > >Response: then angels are eternal. stop drifting. Stay >focused.
Reply: Or not, as I've demonstrated. The verse provides two very different means from the same text. You've not addressed what I said at all. You just are denying it.
> >>Reply: Except Hebrews 2:8 demonstrates from a purely >>grammatical perspective that John 1:3 is not limited to >>being an absolute, which is something Origen confirms. > >Resposne: 1) Heb 2:8 has a different context, so pure >grammer is only part of the equation.
Reply: And yet your argument seems to be based on grammar, and this proves your position invalid.
> >2)Origen is not a realible exegete. Isn't he the guy who >cut off his own stuff??
Reply: Huh?
>3) Nothing (meaning not one thing) that has *come into >existance*(the Father is not included in that, but the Son >would), which would include the Logos has come into >existance with him. Time to deal with the text, stop >running.
Reply: And "nothing" is not subjected to Christ either according to Hebrews 2:8. Yet we know 1 Cor 15:27 says except the Father. Paul considers this exception obvious by what he states, as the writer of Hebrews obviously did with 2:8. I believe it is obviously shown in John 1:4 too. Your argument is without grammatical and contextual support.
> > >>Taking hO GEGONEN with verse 4 provides the exception. > >Response: No, it does not, for it does not say *except* in >verse 4. You would have to read *except* into the passage. >Unless you can show me *except* in the passage. Can you do >that?
Reply: I don't have to, as Hebrews 2:8 demonstrates. You won't engage the grammar though will you, you'll just claim.
> >And I have demonstrated that in verse 4, it makes no sense. > > >>You don't have to agree that HN is inceptive, but you can't >>deny it is possible. This has soundly been demonstrated in >>verse 10, where I provided a several translations to >>demonstrate such. > >Response: Yes, I can, because of context. Nothing that >exist, exist apart from the Logos, except is not in the >passage. Nothing meaning not one thing, zero, ziltch.
Reply: Well, actually, I agree in a sense. See, CORIS denotes separation. Hence we say "apart from him". Now, in Col 1:16 it says "all things came into being in him" and I take this as locative. Now Christ does not exist apart from himself, and so yes, he did not come into being apart from himself. Within the sphere of his own existence is where he has always existed. Of course though, this all aside, you still haven't delt with Hebrews 2:8.
> >> >>Reply: Except Hebrews 2:8 says nothing was not subjected to >>Christ, yet 1 Cor 15:27 says the Father is the exception. >>Origen, a native koine Greek speaker/writer, agrees with me, >>not you my friend. > >Response: Good you refuted Hebrew 2:8, now deal with John >1:3, for it says *not one thing that *HAS COME INTO >EXISTANCE*, the Father has not come into existance, >therefore John 1:3 is not refering to the Father, but ALL >THINGS THAT CAME INTO EXISTANCE. But that would include the >Son, uh oh Deal with the text. Pull off the running shoes.
Reply: LOL. Deal with hebrews 2:8 within the context. is the Father subjected to the Son? If we use your logic on John 1:3, based on Hebrews 2:8 we must apply the same. I've delt with your text and explained that John 1:4 provides something that did not come into existence through the Son, which Origen, knowing his language better than you or I, concures with.
> > >>Reply: Hebrews 2:8 is a beauty. Ruins your argument. > >Response: Yeah Heb 2:8 is a beauty, too bad it has nothing >to do with John 1, I mean unless you care to provide me with >a qoute of John in the book of Hebrews.
Reply: Except Hebrews 2:8 uses OUDEN. Clear grammatical parallel here, and there is definitely an exception to Hebrews 2:8, which is implied.
>>>Reply: I've used Greek gramamr to demonstrate that in the >>cited construction ARCH neither means ruler or source. >>You've not addressed this. > >Response: First of all, all you did was go to the LXX, and >demonstrate that some of those uses *might* be partitive, >but not all. Secondly, even if they all were partitive, >that does not mean that Rev 3:14 follows that same pattern. >Secondly, I showed you grammer from Wallace, I showed you >arche in the OT meaning rule, genitives do not change the >meaning of the words.
Reply: You've not shown me one example where ARCH means ruler where used in the CONSTRUCTION of Rev 3:14. We are talking about the use of the word, not just a possible definition.
> >> >>Reply: This tells me you really don't know what you're >>talking about here. The first result of someones work is >>the first part of the work they do. It is a PART of the >>work. > >Response: This shows me that you can't refute me, for if we >look at Wallace on page 84, it says that one way to tell if >the genitive it partitive or possessive, is to ask whether >the genitive substantive would object to teh head nouns >departure. >
Reply: The funny thing is, I've refuted you by example. See, the type of genitive this is really is based on how ARCH is being used. Before we can claim it is a certain genitive, we must show the use. Now you've failed to demonstrate that ARCH is being used in any way other than I've claimed. How so? Because you've been unable to find a single example of where ARCH is used as either ruler or originator in such a construction. Until you can demonstrate the use, you have no basis for claiming that it is a genitive of a different type other than a partitive. Sometimes the head noun can be absent and implied from the context, but this is hardly always the case, as Romans 15:26 demonstrates.
>Surely, the farmer would object to his first fruits >departure, therefore that is a possesive genitive, and first >of the fruit is an attributive genitive, not a partitive >either. >>>Reply: Nice claim, still doesn't address what I've >>demonstrate. In the construction found at Rev 3:14, it is >>not used as ruler. ARCWN is used in that construction. > >Response: Arche can mean ruler correct? Genitives don't >change meanings, and finally, subjective genitives the noun >takes it verbal counter part.
Reply: Specific uses control the meaning. If a word is used in a certain way consistently and is never used in a different way, obviously the semantic signaling for the word in a specific construction is one certain way. This is clearly seen with ARCH in the LXX and GNT.
>> >>Reply: According to Hebrews 1:3, neither do God and Jesus. > >Response: So you are polythestic? Sounds good to me.
Reply: Sounds to me like you are trying to run from the issues.
>>Reply: You've still failed to DEMONSTRATE anything. You >>never demonstrate, you always seem to claim. > >Response: I showed you how subjective genitive work, I >showed you how the noun functions like a verb inorder to >demonstrate that Rev 3 fits, you are just ignoring the >truth. No sweat off my back.
Reply: You've SAID, you've not SHOWN. Find verses that use ARCH, where ARCH means what you say and is used how you claim.
>>>Reply: God is still the originator, because he is the >>source. You've yet to demonstrate the use of ARCH in the >>construction of Rev 3:14 to mean this though. > >Response: Since Jesus is their author, he can be seen as >their orginator, especially, since God only empowers him. >That is like me giving you some paint and you painting the >picture, you are still the artist.
Reply: That would make Christ the source of creation, not the intermediate agent. Doesn't work. God a place where ARCH means originator in scripture?
>>Reply: The evidence obviously does not agree with you, >>because you've yet to provide a single verse to demonstrate >>the use of ARCH in such a contruction to mean ruler or >>originator. I've come up with countless examples where it >>means first or beginning as I've argued for Rev 3:14. > >Response: all of those LXX passages that I showed you that >arche means ruler. You have shown examples and I refuted >them. And lastly, have you ever considered, that maybe Rev >3 would be the exception to the partitive idea. (even though >I has dismissed that idea)
Reply: I never denied that ARCH can mean ruler, but what is the semantic signalling to the reader? The grammar provides that.. As for it be the exception, this is highly improbable, as the statistical weight is too heavy. It would certain confuse the 1st century readers.
>> >>>>Reply: Obviously you don't know enough, you just know your >>theology and will argue with the little that you do to try >>and support it, ignore the piles of evidence against it. > >Response: Flattery will get you no where. Time to start >dealing with the text, within their context, stop jumping >running Tony, I bet you have to buy new running shoes >weekly.
Reply: Running? I've given countless examples, I've repeatedly ask for you to provide exampels. What do I get? More words, no examples.
>>Reply: Christ can't share that being if he represents that >>being. It would be a contradiction of terms. Show me where >>the Bible ever distinguishes between a person and a being >>please. See, it never does. > >Response: John 1:1 does that.
Reply: LOL. Where does John 1:1 talk about PROSWPONS and hUPOSTASISes? It does not. It does not distinguish between person and being, you read this into the passage. You have no linguistic or grammatical basis for your claim that it does such.
> >In scripture, a different >>person is always a different being. The Bible speaks of one >>God just as the Jews spoke of God their one Father, but in >>the same context (john 8) they had no problem calling >>Abraham their Father, and so in the same way we should have >>no problem calling Jesus God. > >Response: except Abraham did not posses the same being as >the Father,
Reply: A priori all the way here. You assume it, so you read it into the text. Your statement has no bearing on what I said. Try again.
>> >>> >>>I opt for B, since it is the most consistant. >> >>Reply: Except it creates a contradiction... > >Response: There is only one God.
Reply: Yet, many are called gods, just as Abraham was called Father.
-Tony
|