|
> >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.
Response: You have not shown that the verse can mean two things, you only stated it, in otherwords, you have not explained what happens with the *gar* in your translation. >> >Reply: And yet your argument seems to be based on grammar, >and this proves your position invalid.
Response: I said context refutes the inceptive Tony, not grammer. Hebrews 2:8 says that there is nothign not under his rule, and that passage in Cor says except the Father.
However in John 1 there is a difference,
1) the words except are not in the passage, you need to show me where, otherwise you are reading into the text. If you can't then you need to reconsider your position.
2) even if they did relate the best you could say is that only the Father is not created by Christ. But it would still include Christ himself.
3) Just because their are limits to what is subjected to Christ, does not mean that there are limits to what he has created. I really think you are doing a poor job here. You are connecting passages that do not even relate, just for the sake of your theology.
4) Why is it that the New World Translation has ho gegonen in verse 3 as well?
"All things came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existance. What has come into existance." NWT
Seems to me that the NWT supports me and not your rendering at all. And I don't see the words except in their translation either. Hmmm.
>Reply: Huh?
Response: Yeah he took a literal rendering of Matt 5:30. Weird because that is one of the few times he took a literal meaning to anything, he cut off his own stuff. The point is, he is not a realible exegete. I'd only use him for LXX textual critism. >> >Reply: And "nothing" is not subjected to Christ either >according to Hebrews 2:8.
Response: Hebrews 2 is not related to John 1, they are discussing totally different topics. If you wanted to relate them, the best you could do is say that sure the Father is not under Christ rule, and in relation to John 1, the Father is not created by Christ. Therefore, my arguement would still stand.
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.
Response: Hmm, 1 Cor 15:27 has *ektos tou upotazantos* I don't see ektos in John 1:4, do you see it? Or are you reading your theology into the text?? Is the word except there?
If the answer is no, then you are reading into the text.
And agian what is under his subjection is totally different than what he has created.
I believe it is obviously shown in John 1:4 too. >Your argument is without grammatical and contextual support.
Response: Does John 1:4 have the word *except* as 1 Cor 15:27 does.
If not, then you are reading into the text.
>Reply: I don't have to, as Hebrews 2:8 demonstrates. You >won't engage the grammar though will you, you'll just claim.
Response: Sure I will engage in grammer, when you decide to engage in context. You do realize that they are different context don't you??
> >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.
Response: The above answer made absolutely no sense whatsoever. So now according to you Christ created himself?? Oh boy, and I see you realized you were making no sense, and immediatly jumped to Hebrews 2, which has a different context, but hey if that is how you operate. > >Reply: LOL. Deal with hebrews 2:8 within the context. is >the Father subjected to the Son?
Response: Looking for exegesis of JOhn 1:3, darn nothing. Just because things being subjected to Christ have limits, does not give you the right to assume that what was created by Christ has limits as well. I think this one of your weakest arguement.
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.
Response: No we don't have to apply anything to Hebrews 2:8 based off of JOhn, they are talking about different things here. We must take each within their own respected context. Origen is not a realible exegete, he may know the langauge, but the guy was an allegorist. > >Reply: Except Hebrews 2:8 uses OUDEN. Clear grammatical >parallel here, and there is definitely an exception to >Hebrews 2:8, which is implied.
Response: Fine there is an exception to Hebrews 2:8 but not JOhn 1:3, except is not there, they are dealing with different context, you are running from John 1:3. >>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.
Response: All I need is one example. If one example is true, then it is good.
>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?
Response: Well, I have shown you that the way that you claim arch is being used is not always correct. It was very rarely used as a partitive. I showed you both attributive, objective, and subjective usage. So if it can be subjective in Mark, it can be subjective in Rev 3.
Because you've been unable to find a >single example of where ARCH is used as either ruler or >originator in such a construction.
Response: Again, genitive do not change the meaning of the word. If arch can be demonstrated to be a subjective genitive, and it carries the meaning ruler as well, then Rev 3, can take such a meaning. And be grammatically correct in doing so. And since it is a verbal noun, it is most likely a subjective genitive grammatically.
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.
Response: I have plenty of basis.
1. All of your so-called partives were not all partives in the first place.
2. Since, arch is a verbal noun, it is most likely a objective or subjective genitive.
3. There are examples of subjective usages in the NT
4. It can be grammatically defended and is supported by scholars such as Wallace. > > >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.
Response: Again, arch is not always partitive as you keep claiming it is, at best, I think you could strongly argue for no more than two of them. The rest were attributive, objective, and subjective. Especially since, it is a verbal noun. >Reply: Sounds to me like you are trying to run from the >issues.
Response: No actually I am trying to catch up to you, since you ran first. >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.
Response: Rev 3:14. All I need is one example, and I got it. >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?
Response: if he is working in a hands on type of manner he would be their originator. Especially since he and the Father are working at the same time. If me and you worked on a project at the same time, I can still call myself the orginator of the project even though you and I share different roles. >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.
Response: Not confusing at all, since the 1st century readers would have read John 1:1 etc. They knew that John was talking about Christ rule and authority. >Reply: Running? I've given countless examples, I've >repeatedly ask for you to provide exampels. What do I get? >More words, no examples.
Response: You provided bad examples, not good ones, I dealt with each of them one on one. The partitive idea only maybe fit one or two of those. Secondly, just because something is not found in the LXX a certain, way does not automattically mean that it cannot be rendered another way in the NT. Too suggest such just demonstrates that you were looking for an arguement, with high expectations. > > >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.
Response: Sure I do, Theos is used qualitatively since context destroys the inceptive usage of hen, secondly it tells us that the Logos was personal, and with the Logos, and revealed the Logos, so he is a different person. And you are one to talk, you have got to show me except in JOhn 1:3. > >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.
Resposne: So you want to argue that Abraham has the same being as the Father?? AM I reading you correctly??
>Reply: Yet, many are called gods, just as Abraham was >called Father.
Resposne: Does not possess the same being.
------------ En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos
|