Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #693

Subject: "Trinity debate/discussion" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu May-20-04 02:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Trinity debate/discussion"


          

This is a discussion of whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical or not. I am a trinitarian and will be defending the doctrine, (along with others I guess) Malachi (and others) will be going against the doctrine.

I will be using both Hebrew and Greek grammer, if there is something that is confusing, feel free to inbox me. And please if you are not interested do not slander the post with nonsense, please if you don't care, just chill out. Ok let's begin...

Introduction:
You've heard it all before. "The Trinity is pagan! It came from Vishnu, Brahma, and can't think of the other gods name, or it comes from Osirus, Isis, and Horus, or some other three ring god etc. Or my favorite, is that in 325 A.D. the catholic church along with Constantine (who was not a Theologian and could care less) got together and conspired to make God three persons. (Even though there are first and second century Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis who believed in the Deity of Christ). And finally, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (although the word Bible is not found in the Bible either, but that never stopped anyone.)

The problem is that many people do not fully understand what the trinity is saying, nor understand how to defend it. The trinity is not the same as those of other cultures, and hopefully, when I am finished explaining what it really means there will be no confusion.

So what is the definition of the trinity...

Within the one *Being* that is God, there exist eternally three co-equal and co-eternal *persons*, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Notice that I astericks around the word Being and Person. This is where the many errors are made, especially when comparing the Trinity to other pagan gods.

Everything that exist has being, but not everything has person.

We are called human beings, because we have attributes that make us human. Example, hands, nose, eyes, hair etc.

Trees have the Being of trees, rocks have the being of rocks, dogs have the being of dogs. Example: Fur, tail etc. Here is a qoute from James White NT scholar...

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

Therefore we say that there is one Being who is God.

Now that, that is clear, I said everything that exist has being, but not person. But what is person? I am a human being, we all are, but I am the only osoclasi on earth, my person makes me osoclasi, however, I am finite and exist only in one body, God however is infinite and can exist in three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within the one being that is God.

Therefore Jesus is not the Father, but yet shares that being of the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, but yet shares the being of the Spirit. The Father sent the Son, the Son loves and prays to the Father, the Holy Spirit points nonbelievers to Christ yet shares the nature of Christ. This is different from pagan gods, because with Vishnu, Brahma etc, Vishnu turns into Brahma and vice versa, they are not different persons, but rather different modes of the same god. As far as Isis and Osirus, they are totally different gods (polytheism). These type of distinctions can be made with all of the gods accused of being trinities.


Futhermore, I will be using the words Being/Essenc/Entity interchangeablly.

Just for support that I got the definition of the trinity correct notice our church creeds even though they are not scripture (i will get into that later) they futher my definitions.

Athanasian Creed states...

4. Neither confounding the Person nor dividing the *substance*.
5. For there is one Person one Person the Father, another the Son, and another the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated: The Son uncreated: and such is the Holy Spirit.

Notice, the distinction between substance (being) and person. All of Christian church creeds define the trinity as such, and I can provide more if necessary.

But all of this would be no good without Biblical support. Where do we begin? Everyone agrees that the Father is God, but what about the Son? And the Holy Spirit?

For the Son, a verse that is very popular is John 1:1 it says.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Malachi will no doubt try to convince you that it should read an the Word was a god. But the Greek grammer does not demand such, but more on that later. Notice however, that the Word was *with* God, this illustrates that the Word was intimate with God, and then John turns around and says that the word was God.

Does this make sense? It does if we understand when the Word is called God, John is refering to the Being of the Word.

So the Word was with the person who is called the Father, and is the very nature or being of the Father, therefore he is fully in his being God. I will get into the Greek grammer later on.

Other passages that call Jesus God are Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

For the Holy Spirit we have Acts 5:3-4, where lying to the Holy Spirit is equavalent to lying to God.

Acts 5:3
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

I will get into more scripture and grammer later on, but we see that the Trinity is Biblical and not pagan. And don't worry I will answer all of those verses about the Father being greater than the Son, and called the one True God, and the Son praying or not knowing the day and hour etc when they are brought up.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
Devil's advocate:
May 20th 2004
1
RE: Devil's advocate:
May 21st 2004
6
      Rik Veda
May 21st 2004
9
      RE: Rik Veda
May 21st 2004
16
           RE: Rik Veda
May 21st 2004
19
                RE: Rik Veda
May 21st 2004
29
                     yeah, but come on now
May 22nd 2004
42
                          RE: yeah, but come on now
May 22nd 2004
43
                               oh, ok
May 22nd 2004
45
      RE: Devil's advocate:
May 21st 2004
33
           RE: Devil's advocate:
May 21st 2004
34
                RE: Devil's advocate:
May 21st 2004
36
                     ethiopian names .....
May 22nd 2004
37
                     you have the right idea
May 22nd 2004
41
                     aorist tense
May 22nd 2004
44
                          RE: aorist tense
May 22nd 2004
50
                               I think I get it
May 22nd 2004
54
                                    RE: I think I get it
May 23rd 2004
58
RE: Trinity debate/discussion
mcneter
May 21st 2004
2
hebrew word for trinity
May 21st 2004
3
RE: hebrew word for trinity
May 21st 2004
7
      RE: hebrew word for trinity
May 21st 2004
23
           RE: hebrew word for trinity
May 21st 2004
31
                RE: hebrew word for trinity
May 21st 2004
32
                     RE: hebrew word for trinity
May 21st 2004
35
                          where?
May 23rd 2004
60
                               RE: where?
May 24th 2004
67
                               Nowhere, nowhere AT ALL.
May 25th 2004
73
                                    RE: Nowhere, nowhere AT ALL.
May 25th 2004
74
                                         Man you haven't proven a thing...
May 25th 2004
75
Does god have a God?
May 21st 2004
4
RE: Does god have a God?
mcneter
May 21st 2004
5
answer to John 20:17.
May 21st 2004
8
      RE: answer to John 20:17.
May 21st 2004
13
      RE: answer to John 20:17.
May 21st 2004
17
           RE: answer to John 20:17.
May 23rd 2004
61
                RE: answer to John 20:17.
May 24th 2004
68
      "Well he was a man, and he was also God"
May 23rd 2004
59
           but those verses don't say
May 24th 2004
69
You opened up with a mouthful...but I'll address
May 21st 2004
10
John 1:1 in brief
May 21st 2004
20
The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?
May 21st 2004
11
RE: The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?
May 21st 2004
21
      RE: The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?
May 21st 2004
25
      RE: The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?
May 21st 2004
30
      your history of the Nicea Council is off...
May 21st 2004
28
Titus 2:13
May 21st 2004
12
Grandville Sharp's rule
May 21st 2004
24
      Why this is a RIDICULOUS COMMENT:
May 22nd 2004
39
           I was being silly
May 22nd 2004
46
Did God create god?
May 21st 2004
14
Christ is uncreated
May 21st 2004
26
      Christ as Wisdom
btony
May 25th 2004
79
           RE: Christ as Wisdom
May 26th 2004
89
           RE: Christ as Wisdom
btony
May 26th 2004
90
                RE: Christ as Wisdom
May 26th 2004
103
                     RE: Christ as Wisdom
btony
May 26th 2004
105
                          RE: Christ as Wisdom
May 26th 2004
119
                               RE: Christ as Wisdom
btony
May 26th 2004
132
                               people don't personify attributes
May 26th 2004
140
                                    RE: people don't personify attributes
btony
May 26th 2004
141
                                         RE: people don't personify attributes
May 26th 2004
146
                                              RE: people don't personify attributes
btony
May 26th 2004
154
                                                   RE: people don't personify attributes
May 27th 2004
165
                                                        RE: people don't personify attributes
btony
May 27th 2004
172
                                                        RE: people don't personify attributes
May 27th 2004
178
                                                             RE: people don't personify attributes
btony
May 27th 2004
199
                                                                  you are ignoring the context of 1 Cor
May 28th 2004
202
                                                                       More strawman arguments.. and repetition
btony
May 28th 2004
212
                                                                            way to duck exegesis
May 28th 2004
222
                                                                            RE: way to duck exegesis
btony
May 28th 2004
225
                                                                            theological problems with wisdom
May 28th 2004
234
                                                                            RE: theological problems with wisdom
btony
May 28th 2004
239
                                                                            so Proverbs does not support Christ creation
May 28th 2004
246
                                                                            Tick, tock, tick, tock...
btony
May 28th 2004
248
                                                                            wisdom is greater than Christ.
May 28th 2004
252
                                                                            not at all..
btony
May 28th 2004
257
                                                                            RE: not at all..
May 29th 2004
267
                                                                            RE: not at all..
btony
May 29th 2004
268
                                                                            part time wisdom
May 29th 2004
271
                                                                            strawman arguments and misrepresentation
btony
May 29th 2004
273
                                                                            FINISH HIM !!!!!!!!!!!
May 29th 2004
282
                                                                            This ain't mortal combat... start back peddling..
btony
May 29th 2004
284
                                                                            george, malachi, time to get your boy
May 29th 2004
288
                                                                            This is your brain on drugs... any questions?
btony
May 29th 2004
290
                                                                            Last one, unless ya got something better
May 29th 2004
294
                                                                            its already better than anything you have...
btony
May 29th 2004
296
                                                        Are you trying to say that CHOKMAH is not AMON?
btony
May 27th 2004
175
                                                             RE: Are you trying to say that CHOKMAH is not AMON?
May 27th 2004
179
                                                                  AMON, not AMONAH.
btony
May 27th 2004
197
                                                                       RE: AMON, not AMONAH.
May 28th 2004
203
                                                                            Oh please... give me a break
btony
May 28th 2004
209
                                                                            you need a break
May 28th 2004
211
                                                                            You're stuck between a rock and a hard place...
btony
May 28th 2004
213
                                                                            oso eats the rock and breaks the hard place
May 28th 2004
223
                                                                            Wrong...
btony
May 28th 2004
227
                                                                            and
May 28th 2004
237
                                                                            Solomon isn't doing it!
btony
May 28th 2004
240
                                                                            but genre plays a role as well
May 28th 2004
243
                                                                            nothing to do with it...
btony
May 28th 2004
245
                                                                            RE: nothing to do with it...
May 28th 2004
247
                                                                            Certainly...
btony
May 28th 2004
249
                                                                            Why.. why.. why... you won't answer why.. why?
btony
May 28th 2004
214
                                                                                 because, because.... because
May 28th 2004
224
                                                                                 That answer doesn't work...
btony
May 28th 2004
226
                                                                                 its not definite
May 28th 2004
238
                                                                                 see post 233 -nt
btony
May 28th 2004
241
                                                                                 Further on gender... REALLY stuck in a corner this time
btony
May 28th 2004
233
                                                                                 well let me double check
May 28th 2004
242
                                                                                 sounds like a plan -nt
btony
May 28th 2004
244
                               Please translate the following...
btony
May 26th 2004
137
                                    RE: Please translate the following...
May 26th 2004
142
                                         RE: Please translate the following...
btony
May 26th 2004
143
                                              RE: Please translate the following...
May 26th 2004
147
                                                   So you don't really know Greek....
btony
May 26th 2004
155
                                                        no its your transliteration
May 27th 2004
166
                                                             Guess you've never written Greek or typed it...
btony
May 27th 2004
171
                                                                  no I would have written it like this instead
May 27th 2004
180
                                                                       RE: no I would have written it like this instead
btony
May 27th 2004
198
           ignore
Jun 02nd 2004
367
Let me tell you why Acts 5:3,4 is irrelevant:
May 21st 2004
15
RE: Let me tell you why Acts 5:3,4 is irrelevant:
mcneter
May 21st 2004
18
RE: ruach
May 21st 2004
22
RE: Let me tell you why Acts 5:3,4 is irrelevant:
May 21st 2004
27
Some additional points...
May 22nd 2004
38
RE: Some additional rebuttals
May 22nd 2004
47
RE: Some additional rebuttals
May 22nd 2004
52
      RE: Some additional rebuttals
May 22nd 2004
55
           This is a SLANDEROUS LIE:
May 24th 2004
62
           YHWH/Jehovah/Alah
May 24th 2004
64
           RE: This is a SLANDEROUS LIE:
May 24th 2004
70
                RE: This is a SLANDEROUS LIE:
May 25th 2004
72
                     RE: This is a SLANDEROUS LIE:
May 25th 2004
76
                     Aw man, I made a mistake, we
May 26th 2004
86
           uh
May 24th 2004
63
                RE: uh
May 24th 2004
71
a Jehovah's Witness using 5%er terminology...
May 24th 2004
65
      LOL!!! Well you know, if the shoe fits...
May 24th 2004
66
How Come Jesus
May 22nd 2004
40
He limited himself
May 22nd 2004
48
RE: He limited himself
mcneter
May 22nd 2004
51
      I never said he could not
May 22nd 2004
56
it's like gandalf
May 25th 2004
78
a brief look at John 1:1
May 22nd 2004
49
A Reply on John 1:1
btony
May 25th 2004
80
      ignore - nt
btony
May 25th 2004
81
      Reposting.. Didn't post properly
btony
May 26th 2004
88
      RE: A Reply on John 1:1
May 26th 2004
91
           RE: A Reply on John 1:1
btony
May 26th 2004
94
                RE: A Reply on John 1:1
May 26th 2004
118
                     RE: A Reply on John 1:1
btony
May 26th 2004
125
                          RE: A Reply on John 1:1
May 26th 2004
144
                               RE: A Reply on John 1:1
btony
May 26th 2004
145
                                    RE: A Reply on John 1:1
May 26th 2004
148
                                         RE: A Reply on John 1:1
btony
May 26th 2004
156
                                              you skipped en verses engento again
May 27th 2004
167
                                                   I've addressed it several times now.
btony
May 27th 2004
170
                                                   you call that addressing the issue.
May 27th 2004
181
                                                        Osoclasi needs to go back to Greek 101.
btony
May 27th 2004
200
                                                             class is over
May 27th 2004
201
                                                                  class is over? Take it again...
btony
May 28th 2004
216
                                                                       I'm the professor
May 28th 2004
228
                                                                            How can you be? You HAVE a professor?
btony
May 28th 2004
229
                                                                                 A few translations with the inceptive imperfect...
btony
May 28th 2004
231
                                                                                 of course this does not change
May 28th 2004
253
                                                                                 But it does demonstrate...
btony
May 28th 2004
255
                                                                                 Here is why I disagree
May 29th 2004
272
                                                                                 I will accept this argument..
btony
May 29th 2004
285
                                                                                 lol I was being silly
May 28th 2004
250
                                                                                      RE: lol I was being silly
btony
May 28th 2004
254
                                                                                      RE: lol I was being silly
May 28th 2004
259
                                                                                      RE: lol I was being silly
btony
May 28th 2004
262
                                                                                      RE: lol I was being silly
May 29th 2004
274
                                                                                      RE: lol I was being silly
btony
May 29th 2004
277
                                                                                      nothing really to committ on
May 29th 2004
283
                                                   Metzger on John 1:3,4 punctuation
btony
May 27th 2004
174
                                                   Early writings demonstrating John 1:4's punctuation
btony
May 27th 2004
177
                                                        I responded to this in
May 28th 2004
204
                                                             What Greek text are you using.? (Osoclasi)
georg_kaplin
May 28th 2004
236
                                                                  GNT
May 28th 2004
251
                                                                       Osovague!
georg_kaplin
May 29th 2004
270
                                                                            UBS4
May 29th 2004
275
                                                                                 RE: UBS4
georg_kaplin
May 31st 2004
322
oneness. tha word trinity is not even in tha bible.
May 22nd 2004
53
The Father is Greater Than I
May 22nd 2004
57
RE: The Father is Greater Than I
May 25th 2004
77
Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 25th 2004
82
ugg.. ignore again - nt
btony
May 25th 2004
83
RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
May 26th 2004
95
      RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 26th 2004
100
           RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
May 26th 2004
120
                RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 26th 2004
135
                     RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
May 26th 2004
149
                          RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 26th 2004
157
                               RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
May 28th 2004
205
                                    RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 28th 2004
217
                                         RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
May 28th 2004
256
                                              RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 28th 2004
258
                                                   RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
May 29th 2004
279
                                                        RE: Jesus is Not Jehovah the Almighty
btony
May 29th 2004
281
                                                             GET OVER HERE !!!!!
May 29th 2004
286
                                                                  RE: GET OVER HERE !!!!!
btony
May 29th 2004
287
                                                                       we are going in circles
May 29th 2004
289
                                                                            Cause you won't accept the facts...
btony
May 29th 2004
291
Holy Spirit Arguments Invalid-Acts 5,personal verbs,ect
btony
May 25th 2004
84
RE: Holy Spirit Arguments Invalid-Acts 5,personal verbs
May 26th 2004
121
      RE: Holy Spirit Arguments Invalid-Acts 5,personal verbs
btony
May 26th 2004
133
RE: Trinity debate/discussion
May 25th 2004
85
NWT Translators
btony
May 26th 2004
87
Does god + God = 1
May 26th 2004
92
RE: Does god + God = 1
btony
May 26th 2004
97
RE: Does god + God = 1
May 26th 2004
98
You stole my thunder malang,
May 26th 2004
99
you need to respond to
May 26th 2004
122
Does seeing jesus = Seeing God?
May 26th 2004
93
RE: Does seeing jesus = Seeing God?
May 26th 2004
123
was god BEGOTTEN of God?
May 26th 2004
96
RE: was god BEGOTTEN of God?
May 26th 2004
124
how many 'sons' did God have?
May 26th 2004
101
singular verse plural son
May 26th 2004
126
      RE: singular verse plural son
mcneter
May 26th 2004
138
where is the Trinity explicitly mentioned?
May 26th 2004
102
where is the Trinity explicitly mentioned? pt 2
May 26th 2004
104
Trinity pt 3
May 26th 2004
106
RE: where is the Trinity explicitly mentioned?
May 26th 2004
127
will you worship Jesus or God?
May 26th 2004
107
were we created by one or many?
May 26th 2004
108
Both check
May 26th 2004
128
Did Jesus allow worhip of himself?
May 26th 2004
109
angels and men "worshipped"
btony
May 26th 2004
116
      but not
May 26th 2004
129
           Where?
btony
May 26th 2004
134
                RE: Where?
May 26th 2004
150
                     RE: Where?
btony
May 26th 2004
153
                          RE: Where?
May 27th 2004
182
                               Jesus as God's appointed and annointed King (Osoclasi)
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
188
                                    not so fast George
May 28th 2004
206
                                         Share glory?
btony
May 28th 2004
218
                                         RE: Share glory?
May 28th 2004
260
                                              which part??
btony
May 28th 2004
264
                                         WHAT?!?!?!? Jesus COMMANDED God?!?!?!?
May 28th 2004
221
                                         it is an imperative
May 28th 2004
261
                                              See George's post.. it answers this point -nt
btony
May 28th 2004
263
                                         not so fast Osoclasi
georg_kaplin
May 28th 2004
232
                                              almost does not equal always
May 28th 2004
266
                                                   Again.. which part?
btony
May 29th 2004
269
                                                   clarification
May 29th 2004
276
                                                        RE: clarification
btony
May 29th 2004
278
                                                             not the same
May 29th 2004
292
                                                                  Exactly the same..
btony
May 29th 2004
293
                                                   Osoclasi, Checkmate!
georg_kaplin
May 29th 2004
298
Was Jesus God from the beginning?
May 26th 2004
110
Read Devil's advocate
May 26th 2004
130
Did Jesus make all things?
May 26th 2004
111
masculine nouns/pronouns
btony
May 26th 2004
115
by the way
May 26th 2004
152
was Jesus made flesh and sent to dwelt among us???
May 26th 2004
112
Man malang, you have been doing MAD
May 26th 2004
113
      not all mine
May 26th 2004
114
DID YOU NOTICE A TREND(s)?
May 26th 2004
117
I'll answer the rest tonight
May 26th 2004
131
As btony continues to murder osoclasi's
May 26th 2004
136
May 26th 2004
139
not dead yet
May 26th 2004
151
      You are DEAD AND BURIED...I have provided
May 27th 2004
160
           no where near dead, nor buried
May 27th 2004
183
                Time to start taking a bible to work, Osoclasi!
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
184
                RE: Time to start taking a bible to work, Osoclasi!
May 27th 2004
189
                     Join us Osoclasi!
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
192
                     no thanks I am winning
May 28th 2004
207
                          winning is changing your position?
btony
May 28th 2004
220
                          Jehovah draws his humble servants...
georg_kaplin
May 29th 2004
297
                     all the answers at night are fuller answers
May 27th 2004
193
                          RE: all the answers at night are fuller answers
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
195
                This is a BOLDFACED LIE:
May 28th 2004
230
Osoclasi's Denial.. stuck in a corner.
btony
May 26th 2004
158
And the saga continues!
btony
May 27th 2004
173
no where near denial or in a corner
May 27th 2004
186
      Wow what misrepresentation!
btony
May 27th 2004
196
           refuted again, Tony's denial
May 28th 2004
208
                Try getting an original thread name.. and you are wrong
btony
May 28th 2004
219
RE: Trinity debate/discussion
May 26th 2004
159
RE: Trinity debate/discussion
May 27th 2004
161
      Believe it or not, Trinity444 isn't a trinitarian...
May 27th 2004
162
      Confession Time...
May 27th 2004
176
           RE: Confession Time...
May 28th 2004
215
More anti-trinity proof: At Matthew 4:1
May 27th 2004
163
Jesus' response is even better
May 27th 2004
164
RE: More anti-trinity proof: At Matthew 4:1
Jun 03rd 2004
383
      What point are you trying to make in this
Jun 04th 2004
385
           Where was there proof against the trinity?
Jun 04th 2004
387
Greek & Hebrew writers teaching the Trinity? (Osoclasi)
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
168
Where are you from and how did you
May 27th 2004
169
RE: Where are you from and how did you
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
185
RE: Greek & Hebrew writers teaching the Trinity? (Osocl
May 27th 2004
187
      Trinity taught in the Greek bible, where? (Osoclasi)
georg_kaplin
May 27th 2004
190
           RE: Trinity taught in the Greek bible, where? (Osoclas
May 28th 2004
210
                Let's see what you have....
georg_kaplin
May 28th 2004
235
Please be patient
May 27th 2004
191
RE: Please be patient
May 27th 2004
194
So tell us about yourself Osoclasi...
btony
May 28th 2004
265
well I just turned 29
May 29th 2004
280
Ok I think I am out of here
May 29th 2004
295
You can run but you cannot hide....
georg_kaplin
May 29th 2004
299
      I am not gone, I want to slow down
May 30th 2004
301
Trinity debate/discussion Overview/Summary
btony
May 29th 2004
300
My version of what happened
May 30th 2004
302
      Correction of inaccuracies.
btony
May 30th 2004
303
           RE: Correction of inaccuracies.
May 30th 2004
316
                RE: Correction of inaccuracies.
btony
May 30th 2004
319
                     RE: Correction of inaccuracies.
May 31st 2004
323
                          RE: Correction of inaccuracies.
btony
May 31st 2004
329
                               This is hilarious
May 31st 2004
340
                                    YES IT IS
btony
May 31st 2004
343
                                         I was expecting more
Jun 01st 2004
350
                                              will you engage my points for once?
btony
Jun 01st 2004
354
                                              its hard to when you make things up
Jun 02nd 2004
359
                                                   you're still stitting in a big pile of denial... its ge
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
369
                                                        sure Btoney whatever you say
Jun 03rd 2004
377
                                                             Since what I say is true, it should be that way...
btony
Jun 04th 2004
391
                                                                  RE: Since what I say is true, it should be that way...
Jun 05th 2004
397
                                                                       RE: Since what I say is true, it should be that way...
btony
Jun 05th 2004
402
                                                                            I think I am content
Jun 06th 2004
403
                                                                                 You've got a long ways to go....
btony
Jun 06th 2004
406
                                                                                      not really
Jun 07th 2004
411
                                                                                      My evidence vs. your claims
btony
Jun 07th 2004
418
                                                                                      time to deal with the text Tony, stop running
Jun 07th 2004
421
                                                                                      RE: time to deal with the text Tony, stop running
btony
Jun 08th 2004
424
                                                                                      can't keep running awaaaaaaayyyyy
Jun 09th 2004
427
                                                                                      yes, please stop running and give EVIDENCE. Why won't
btony
Jun 09th 2004
433
                                                                                      RE: yes, please stop running and give EVIDENCE. Why wo
Jun 10th 2004
439
                                                                                      Osoclasi Refuses to Demonstrate Any of His Claims
btony
Jun 10th 2004
440
                                                                                      A more indepth word study of Arch
Jun 10th 2004
447
                                                                                      correction on Gen 49:3
Jun 11th 2004
449
                                                                                      part II
Jun 11th 2004
448
                                                                                      Osoclasi has been unable to demonstrate his view.. end
btony
Jun 11th 2004
450
                                                                                      lol, when the going gets tough Btoney gets going
Jun 11th 2004
451
                                                                                      Osoclasi's continued lack of evidence...
btony
Jun 11th 2004
454
                                                                                      Tony continues to wave the hand
Jun 11th 2004
456
                                                                                      No need to reply..
btony
Jun 12th 2004
457
                                                                                      you mean you can't reply
Jun 12th 2004
458
                                                                                      Get a clue... You have ZERO examples to support you.
btony
Jun 12th 2004
461
                                                                                      oh you just want the last word
Jun 12th 2004
463
                                                                                      You're very deceptive.. one example is not to much to a
btony
Jun 13th 2004
467
                                                                                      I thought you were moving on? :)
Jun 13th 2004
468
                                                                                      Still no example...
btony
Jun 13th 2004
471
                                                                                      you don't have one either.
Jun 13th 2004
475
                                                                                      laughable at best..
btony
Jun 13th 2004
477
                                                                                      that is why I am laughing at you
Jun 13th 2004
479
                                                                                      thats ok, your security blanket.. still no example
btony
Jun 14th 2004
486
                                                                                      stafford did not look at context
Jun 15th 2004
487
                                                                                      RE: stafford did not look at context
btony
Jun 15th 2004
490
                                                                                      I see your point but...
Jun 15th 2004
491
                                                                                      RE: I see your point but...
btony
Jun 16th 2004
494
                                                                                      foremost is fine
Jun 16th 2004
495
                                                                                      RE: foremost is fine
btony
Jun 17th 2004
504
                                                                                      sounds good
Jun 17th 2004
505
                                              Gill on Christ as Wisdom
btony
Jun 01st 2004
356
                                              did you want me to refute this?
Jun 02nd 2004
360
                                                   RE: did you want me to refute this?
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
365
                                              Jesus again calls himself Wisdom
btony
Jun 01st 2004
357
                                                   actually Luke calls him that
Jun 02nd 2004
361
                                                        RE: actually Luke calls him that
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
366
                                                             RE: actually Luke calls him that
Jun 03rd 2004
378
                                                                  Wisdom was not on trial -nt
btony
Jun 04th 2004
390
How did this turn into a Watchtower bible study?
May 30th 2004
304
Note the following verses.
btony
May 30th 2004
305
So they are called gods but are not actually deities?
May 30th 2004
307
      How do you define a deity?
btony
May 30th 2004
308
           as having intrinsic divinity on their own right
May 30th 2004
311
                RE: as having intrinsic divinity on their own right
btony
May 30th 2004
312
                     so you believe Jesus himself is a deity
May 30th 2004
313
                          Yup....
btony
May 30th 2004
314
                               okay...
May 30th 2004
315
                                    RE: okay...
btony
May 30th 2004
318
                                         well...
May 31st 2004
325
                                              Depends on what you consider worship...
btony
May 31st 2004
327
                                                   Do you worship Jesus as your Lord and savior?
May 31st 2004
328
                                                        RE: Do you worship Jesus as your Lord and savior?
btony
May 31st 2004
330
                                                             oh, ok
May 31st 2004
335
                                                                  RE: oh, ok
btony
May 31st 2004
337
                                                                       RE: oh, ok
May 31st 2004
338
                                                                            RE: oh, ok
btony
May 31st 2004
339
                                                                                 RE: oh, ok
May 31st 2004
345
                                                                                      RE: oh, ok
btony
May 31st 2004
346
                                                                                      RE: oh, ok
May 31st 2004
347
                                                                                      Funny thing..
btony
May 31st 2004
349
We instruct now that Osoclasi has defaulted....
georg_kaplin
May 30th 2004
306
      as long as its online & u dont come knocking on my door
May 30th 2004
309
      Don't sleep in this Saturday. I'll be over ...
georg_kaplin
May 30th 2004
310
      premature celebration
May 30th 2004
317
           RE: premature celebration
btony
May 30th 2004
320
           RE: premature celebration
May 31st 2004
324
                RE: premature celebration
btony
May 31st 2004
331
                     RE: premature celebration
Jun 01st 2004
353
                          RE: premature celebration
btony
Jun 01st 2004
355
                               RE: premature celebration
Jun 02nd 2004
362
                                    RE: premature celebration
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
371
                                         RE: premature celebration
Jun 03rd 2004
379
           I hear fireworks already!
georg_kaplin
May 31st 2004
321
                I don't hear anything
May 31st 2004
326
                     God and the King share glory then...
btony
May 31st 2004
332
                     did'nt I answer this already?
May 31st 2004
342
                          RE: did'nt I answer this already?
btony
May 31st 2004
344
                               RE: did'nt I answer this already?
Jun 01st 2004
352
                     Back to basics, time to read your Greek grammar...
georg_kaplin
May 31st 2004
334
                          RE: Back to basics, time to read your Greek grammar...
May 31st 2004
341
                               Your proof text: Woulda Shoulda Coulda Does'nt Work
georg_kaplin
May 31st 2004
348
                                    RE: Your proof text: Woulda Shoulda Coulda Does'nt Wo
Jun 01st 2004
351
                                         Jesus PRAYES to God
btony
Jun 01st 2004
358
                                              RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
Jun 02nd 2004
363
                                                   RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
364
                                                        RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
Jun 03rd 2004
380
                                                             RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
btony
Jun 04th 2004
392
                                                                  RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
Jun 05th 2004
398
                                                                       RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
btony
Jun 05th 2004
401
                                                                            RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
Jun 06th 2004
404
                                                                                 RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
btony
Jun 06th 2004
405
                                                                                      RE: Jesus PRAYES to God
Jun 07th 2004
412
                                                                                           huh?
btony
Jun 07th 2004
417
                                                                                           RE: huh?
Jun 07th 2004
422
                                                                                           So this proves nothing for you...
btony
Jun 08th 2004
425
                                                                                           RE: So this proves nothing for you...
Jun 09th 2004
428
For Osoclasi, Btony, 40thStreetBlack, MALACHI etc.
May 31st 2004
333
RE: For Osoclasi, Btony, 40thStreetBlack, MALACHI etc.
btony
May 31st 2004
336
separate being believers, throw me your verses:
Jun 02nd 2004
368
Hebrews 1:3 says it all..
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
370
      and the author of Hebrews disagrees...
Jun 02nd 2004
372
           complete and utter failure to engage my point.
btony
Jun 02nd 2004
373
                your point has an omnipotent foot to stand on...
Jun 02nd 2004
374
                     next! Malachi, perhaps?
Jun 03rd 2004
382
                     What about Mark 15:34?
Jun 04th 2004
386
                          keep reading...
Jun 04th 2004
388
                     solid as a rock
btony
Jun 04th 2004
389
                          agreed, except for the whole "being of God" part...
Jun 04th 2004
393
                               Everything assumed a priori..
btony
Jun 05th 2004
394
                                    RE: Everything assumed a priori..
Jun 05th 2004
395
                                         some additional verses...
Jun 05th 2004
396
                                         You might want to do a bit more study on these first...
btony
Jun 05th 2004
400
                                              RE: You might want to do a bit more study on these firs
Jun 06th 2004
407
                                                   RE: You might want to do a bit more study on these firs
btony
Jun 07th 2004
410
                                                        wow.
Jun 07th 2004
414
                                                             yup...
btony
Jun 07th 2004
415
                                                                  Bk of Wisdom is not in my canon.
Jun 07th 2004
420
                                                                       Hebrews is in your cannon.
btony
Jun 08th 2004
426
                                                                            Context vs. Scripture... Wisdom is not in my canon.
Jun 09th 2004
431
                                                                                 not in *your* canon does not equal non-biblical
Jun 09th 2004
432
                                                                                 RE: not in *your* canon does not equal non-biblical
Jun 09th 2004
437
                                                                                 RE: Context vs. Scripture... Wisdom is not in my canon.
btony
Jun 09th 2004
434
                                                                                      RE: Context vs. Scripture... Wisdom is not in my canon.
Jun 09th 2004
438
                                                                                      RE: Context vs. Scripture... Wisdom is not in my canon.
btony
Jun 10th 2004
442
                                                                                      Understanding context = understanding theology
Jun 10th 2004
443
                                                                                      RE: Understanding context = understanding theology
btony
Jun 10th 2004
446
                                                                                      RE: Understanding context = understanding theology
Jun 11th 2004
452
                                         RE: Everything assumed a priori..
btony
Jun 05th 2004
399
                                              RE: Everything assumed a priori..
Jun 06th 2004
408
                                                   LK1- Special Pleading is all he can do
btony
Jun 07th 2004
409
                                                        what can I say? omnipotence is special!
Jun 07th 2004
413
                                                             time to study what special pleading is...
btony
Jun 07th 2004
416
                                                                  Hebrews 1:3 is from the Book of Wisdom--non Biblical.
Jun 07th 2004
419
                                                                       RE: Hebrews 1:3 is from the Book of Wisdom--non Biblica
btony
Jun 08th 2004
423
                                                                            Hebrews 1:3 is Wisdom personified....
Jun 09th 2004
430
                                                                                 LK1 Rejects Hebrews 1:3 as the inspired truth of God.
btony
Jun 09th 2004
435
                                                                                      I do? I was unaware of this.
Jun 09th 2004
436
                                                                                           RE: I do? I was unaware of this.
btony
Jun 10th 2004
441
                                                                                           You have said nothing.
Jun 10th 2004
444
                                                                                           RE: You have said nothing.
btony
Jun 10th 2004
445
                                                                                           RE: You have said nothing.
Jun 11th 2004
453
                                                                                           RE: You have said nothing.
btony
Jun 11th 2004
455
                                                                                           RE: You have said nothing.
Jun 18th 2004
512
Erm
Jun 02nd 2004
375
I kinda see what you are saying, however
Jun 03rd 2004
376
      but is this really about getting an understanding
Jun 03rd 2004
384
379 replies!! Do I win something for being the 400th?
Jun 03rd 2004
381
I am FILLED with Christ's love!
Jun 09th 2004
429
vade retro
Jun 13th 2004
473
Trinitarians win
Jun 12th 2004
459
Disagree
Jun 12th 2004
460
RE: Disagree
Jun 12th 2004
464
      RE: Disagree
Jun 13th 2004
472
           Question Cave Dweller...
btony
Jun 13th 2004
474
           I dont want to get in the middle of this
Jun 14th 2004
481
                not asking you too.. just wanting your view.
btony
Jun 14th 2004
484
           sorry I missed this one
Jun 14th 2004
483
                Thanks for your explanation
Jun 28th 2004
520
Osoclasi is indeed delusional
btony
Jun 12th 2004
462
      still trying to get the last word huh?
Jun 12th 2004
465
           Nope.. you're just deceptive
btony
Jun 13th 2004
466
                you still here??
Jun 13th 2004
469
                     Can't let you be lying to people..
btony
Jun 13th 2004
470
                          RE: Can't let you be lying to people..
Jun 13th 2004
476
                               RE: Can't let you be lying to people..
btony
Jun 13th 2004
478
                                    RE: Can't let you be lying to people..
Jun 13th 2004
480
                                         RE: Can't let you be lying to people..
btony
Jun 14th 2004
485
                                              me lying?? may it never be.
Jun 15th 2004
488
                                                   RE: me lying?? may it never be.
btony
Jun 15th 2004
489
                                                        the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.
Jun 15th 2004
492
                                                             RE: the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.
btony
Jun 16th 2004
493
                                                                  RE: the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.
Jun 16th 2004
496
                                                                       truth is overrated
Jun 17th 2004
500
                                                                       RE: truth is overrated
Jun 17th 2004
507
                                                                            well since you support us
Jun 18th 2004
510
                                                                       RE: the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.
btony
Jun 17th 2004
503
                                                                            RE: the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.
Jun 17th 2004
506
                                                                                 RE: the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.
btony
Jun 18th 2004
509
                                                                                      well if you don't feel like argueing
Jun 18th 2004
513
this Trinity idea is great!
Jun 14th 2004
482
How appropriate...you sure have fooled
Jun 17th 2004
497
      im not 'fooling' anyone
Jun 17th 2004
499
           whatever Iblis...
Jun 17th 2004
501
                i go by many names
Jun 18th 2004
511
Yo btony, this is STILL going on?
Jun 17th 2004
498
RE: Yo btony, this is STILL going on?
btony
Jun 17th 2004
502
time to switch brooms
Jun 17th 2004
508
question for non trinitarian
Jun 18th 2004
514
3 personalities not 3 persons
Jun 21st 2004
515
well I have to disagree
Jun 21st 2004
517
anyone wondering how religion can lead to war
Jun 21st 2004
516
oh were not so bad
Jun 21st 2004
518
Any ideology can potentially lead to war
Jun 22nd 2004
519

40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Thu May-20-04 05:20 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "Devil's advocate:"
In response to Reply # 0
Thu May-20-04 05:23 PM

  

          

Where does it say Jesus is the Word? Are you just assuming that, or is there some other reference to him as such?

And your distiction of the Trinity as one being with 3 distinct persons being different from the other "pagan" trinities... well, in Hinduism, doesn't within the one being/essence/substance that is Brahman, there exist three co-eternal persons, namely, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? I realize there are differences, but the being vs. person thing seems to work just as well for the Hindu Trimurti as it does the Christian Trinity.

And just out of curiousity: what authority, if any, do you give to church creeds like the one you mentioned?

(And bible just means book, but you already know that.)

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 03:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: Devil's advocate:"
In response to Reply # 1


          

>Where does it say Jesus is the Word? Are you just assuming
>that, or is there some other reference to him as such?

Response: Well it should be noted that John 1:1 should be read all the way through verse 18. This is what is called a *book end* Meaning that a statement is made in the beginning and some more points are made in the middle and then the last verse repeats the theme of the first.

The reason why we know the Word is Christ is because of the way the Word is described within this bookend. First of all he is called the *light* (which is a common theme in this gospel)

John 1:4
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Jesus himself later on calls himself the light of the world in John's gospel. (John 8:12). And the word is also called the true light in verse 9.

Secondly in verse 7, John was suppose to be a witness to the light.

John
He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

And we know from the narrative that John was a witness for Christ and no one else.

In verse 11 says ...

John 1:11
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

We know the story of how Israel rejected him etc.

Finally the Word became flesh for our sakes, but also the word has to the only begotten of the Father...

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So this word became flesh and dwelt among us and was God's only begotten. Well there is only one person who fits that criteria, that is Jesus.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.


>And your distiction of the Trinity as one being with 3
>distinct persons being different from the other "pagan"
>trinities... well, in Hinduism, doesn't within the one
>being/essence/substance that is Brahman, there exist three
>co-eternal persons, namely, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? I
>realize there are differences, but the being vs. person
>thing seems to work just as well for the Hindu Trimurti as
>it does the Christian Trinity.

Response: Shiva that is it, I forgot the name of the other god. But back to the point, no I don't think the word person would fit in their system at all. Because Brahman would not be considered a personal god. Here is a qoute I found...

BUT: Brahman is not a being in the sense that Christians think of God as a being - Brahman is entirely impersonal, and entirely impossible to describe.

Everything in the universe is part of Brahman, (including each one of us), but Brahman is more than the sum of everything in the universe.

http://www.pearls.org/hinduism/hindu_gods.html

So the word person would not fit inside the theology of Hinduism at all. Being might fit but not person, although it seems as though being may have a different meaning in Hinduism. And secondly Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva (thanks) are just different forms of the same god,(sort of like modalism or the illustration of solid,liquid, gas, an interesting side note, this is how T.D. Jakes defines the trinity, let's ya know the current state of theology in the church, yikes.) within the trinity all three persons exist at the same time, all are personal, and all share the same will or purpose.
>
>And just out of curiousity: what authority, if any, do you
>give to church creeds like the one you mentioned?

Response: Well I don't give them the same authority that I give the Bible, for I believe the Bible alone is inspired. However, I do feel that they are highly valuable, they are great for study and are great for giving complete statments about what Christians believe. However, I do not think they are infallible by any means, but should be read by all who profess Christianity.
>
>(And bible just means book, but you already know that.)

Response: Yep.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 04:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "Rik Veda"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

verse from the Rik Veda:
"In the beginning was Brahman
with whom was the Word
and the Word was truly the supreme Brahman."

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God."

I thin the Rik Veda precedes John by about three thousand years...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: Rik Veda"
In response to Reply # 9


          

>verse from the Rik Veda:
>"In the beginning was Brahman
>with whom was the Word
>and the Word was truly the supreme Brahman."
>
>I thin the Rik Veda precedes John by about three thousand
>years...

Response: Ya got a source? Or even a verse? Or a website or something, I tried to find that verse and could not.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "RE: Rik Veda"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

>Response: Ya got a source? Or even a verse? Or a website or
>something, I tried to find that verse and could not.

Orignal verse: PRAJAPATHI VAI AGRE ASSET; TASYA VAI DVITIYA ASEET; VAG VAI PARAMA BRAHMAN

the book (Rik Veda) itself is not online...but this is what a quick seach turns up...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=In+the+beginning+was+Brahman%2C+with+whom+was+the+Word.+And+the+Word+is+Brahman

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "RE: Rik Veda"
In response to Reply # 19


          

>Orignal verse: PRAJAPATHI VAI AGRE ASSET; TASYA VAI DVITIYA
>ASEET; VAG VAI PARAMA BRAHMAN
>

Response: Looks to me that the Word there is not being used in the same sense as John is using it. The word looks to be somesort actual words coming out of his, as opposed to John who is refering to another person who was personal.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat May-22-04 07:01 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "yeah, but come on now"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

the personal aspect and usage of "the Word" aside, it's basically the exact same passage. It would *really* be a stretch to say that John didn't incorporate it into his writing.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-22-04 08:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "RE: yeah, but come on now"
In response to Reply # 42


          

>the personal aspect and usage of "the Word" aside, it's
>basically the exact same passage. It would *really* be a
>stretch to say that John didn't incorporate it into his
>writing.
>

Response: Oh he may have incorporated the pattern of the verse into his writtings, and used it for his own theology. And quirked it in order to make the Logos personal, but I was saying I don't think that John meant the same thing as that verse did.

In John's writtings he is trying to make sure that we know that logos is personal and the light of the world and the Messiah. That is his goal. But alot of Biblical writters incorporate writtings from other places and flip it for there theology.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat May-22-04 08:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "oh, ok"
In response to Reply # 43


  

          

>In John's writtings he is trying to make sure that we know
>that logos is personal and the light of the world and the
>Messiah. That is his goal. But alot of Biblical writters
>incorporate writtings from other places and flip it for
>there theology.

As long as you acknowledge that. Many apologists don't.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Fri May-21-04 11:34 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "RE: Devil's advocate:"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

>The reason why we know the Word is Christ is because of the
>way the Word is described within this bookend. First of all
>he is called the *light* (which is a common theme in this
>gospel)

Yeah, I know about him being called the light (that's the translation of my last name actually).

>Jesus himself later on calls himself the light of the world
>in John's gospel. (John 8:12). And the word is also called
>the true light in verse 9.

OK, didn't know the Word was referred to specifically as the light as well. What does that verse 9 say exactly?

>So this word became flesh and dwelt among us and was God's
>only begotten. Well there is only one person who fits that
>criteria, that is Jesus.

OK, yeah, that makes sense. I remember that verse now, just forgot about it.

>Response: Shiva that is it, I forgot the name of the other
>god. But back to the point, no I don't think the word
>person would fit in their system at all. Because Brahman
>would not be considered a personal god. Here is a qoute I
>found...

>So the word person would not fit inside the theology of
>Hinduism at all. Being might fit but not person, although
>it seems as though being may have a different meaning in
>Hinduism.

By the definition of being vs. person you gave, it would seem to fit. Certainly the Hindu concept of Brahman is quite different from the Christian concept of God, but Brahman does have being/essence/substance according to your definition (Everything that exists has being, but not everything has person). And Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva do have person. Granted, the being/essence/substance of Brahman is quite different from that of the Christian God, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have being at all, just that it's being/essence/substance is different. Same for the persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva vs. Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

You said that "God however is infinite and can exist in three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within the one being that is God." - well, that basic framework also works in Hinduism: Brahman is infinite, and can exist in the three persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, which refer to personal distinctions within the one being/essence/substance that is Bhraman. Note that I am not saying that Brahman is the same as God, or that Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are the same as Father/Son/Holy Spirit; what I am saying is that the being vs. person framework you gave works the same.

>And secondly Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva (thanks)
>are just different forms of the same god,(sort of like
>modalism or the illustration of solid,liquid, gas, an
>interesting side note, this is how T.D. Jakes defines the
>trinity, let's ya know the current state of theology in the
>church, yikes.) within the trinity all three persons exist
>at the same time, all are personal, and all share the same
>will or purpose.

No, the modalism thing doesn't work in Hinduism either. Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva all exist at the same time, they're not like a triple-changer transformer like Blitzwing or Astrotrain (if you remember them) that transforms into one form or the other, but does not co-exist as all 3 simultaneously. I think your conception of Hinduism in that regard is off.

(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D. Jakes guy knows about that.)

>Response: Well I don't give them the same authority that I
>give the Bible, for I believe the Bible alone is inspired.
>However, I do feel that they are highly valuable, they are
>great for study and are great for giving complete statments
>about what Christians believe. However, I do not think they
>are infallible by any means, but should be read by all who
>profess Christianity.

OK, makes sense. I was just wondering about that.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 02:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "RE: Devil's advocate:"
In response to Reply # 33


          

>
>Yeah, I know about him being called the light (that's the
>translation of my last name actually).

Response: Oh yeah that is interesting.
>
>OK, didn't know the Word was referred to specifically as the
>light as well. What does that verse 9 say exactly?

John
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

And everytime John refers to the Logos he uses the imperfect tense, to illustrate his eternality. Imperfect tense means a continuous action in the past, i.e I was eating. It is past tense but is continious, evertime John refers to the Logos he uses this tense, and for everything else he uses the aorist tense, which has completion all the way up to verse 18.
>
>By the definition of being vs. person you gave, it would
>seem to fit. Certainly the Hindu concept of Brahman is quite
>different from the Christian concept of God, but Brahman
>does have being/essence/substance according to your
>definition (Everything that exists has being, but not
>everything has person). And Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva do have
>person. Granted, the being/essence/substance of Brahman is
>quite different from that of the Christian God, but that
>doesn't mean that it doesn't have being at all, just that
>it's being/essence/substance is different. Same for the
>persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva vs. Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Response; Let me ask, how can they have person if they are not personal? Unless my qoute was wrong.
>
>You said that "God however is infinite and can exist in
>three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within
>the one being that is God." - well, that basic framework
>also works in Hinduism: Brahman is infinite, and can exist
>in the three persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, which refer to
>personal distinctions within the one being/essence/substance
>that is Bhraman. Note that I am not saying that Brahman is
>the same as God, or that Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are the same as
>Father/Son/Holy Spirit; what I am saying is that the being
>vs. person framework you gave works the same.

Response; Well I would have to take your word on that one. I am not super in depth with the Hindu gods.

>No, the modalism thing doesn't work in Hinduism either.
>Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva all exist at the same time,
>they're not like a triple-changer transformer like Blitzwing
>or Astrotrain (if you remember them) that transforms into
>one form or the other, but does not co-exist as all 3
>simultaneously. I think your conception of Hinduism in that
>regard is off.

Response:Well then again, I am not a hindu scholar. Just know alot bout Christian doctrine and know when I hear something different.
>
>(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the
>triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which
>all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D.
>Jakes guy knows about that.)

Response; Yeah that is true, I forgot about that.
>
>OK, makes sense. I was just wondering about that.

Response; Sure.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Fri May-21-04 03:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: Devil's advocate:"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

>Response: Oh yeah that is interesting.

Yeah, Ethiopian names tend to be pretty religious in nature. My dad's full name translates into English as "Son of Zion, born of the Light." But I only got the 'Light' part in my last name... that's what I get for being a heathen I guess. (Although I should have gotten the Son of Zion part instead, but that's a long story)

>And everytime John refers to the Logos he uses the imperfect
>tense, to illustrate his eternality. Imperfect tense means
>a continuous action in the past, i.e I was eating. It is
>past tense but is continious, evertime John refers to the
>Logos he uses this tense, and for everything else he uses
>the aorist tense, which has completion all the way up to
>verse 18.

What's the aorist tense again? I remember you talking about it being some tense in the Greek, but I forget what it is exactly.

>Response; Let me ask, how can they have person if they are
>not personal? Unless my qoute was wrong.

No the quote is right, but it doesn't explain the whole picture: Brahman itself is not personal, but Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are. They each share in the infinite, eternal being/essence/substance of Brahman, but they are individually personal and so have person, while Brahman itself is beyond the personal. It's kinda complicated, but that's how it breaks down to my understanding.

>Response; Well I would have to take your word on that one. I
>am not super in depth with the Hindu gods.

I'm not super in-depth with them either, but that's the basic gist of it.

>Response:Well then again, I am not a hindu scholar. Just
>know alot bout Christian doctrine and know when I hear
>something different.

Well it is still quite different in their nature, but the being vs. personal framework you laid out essentially works the same as far as I can see.

>>(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the
>>triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which
>>all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D.
>>Jakes guy knows about that.)
>
>Response; Yeah that is true, I forgot about that.

Yeah, Christian apologetics should really brush up on their science, they could do a much better job explaining things. Like with explaining how Christ is both human and divine in nature at the same time: the wave-particle duality of light (where the physical nature of light is both a wave and a particle at the same time) plays absolutely perfectly into that, not to mention the "Light" symbolism playing perfectly into it... I'm surprised y'all haven't jumped all over that one already. (jeez, I almost sound like a Christian apologetic there myself - scary!)

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Deepster
Charter member
1823 posts
Sat May-22-04 12:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
37. "ethiopian names ....."
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

On a side note ... ive read up a bunch of places that ethiopians pass down there first name, to their child, so if your dad's name was "john smith", your name would be (smith _insert last name). Is this true?? . and is this why you were supposed to get the zion part as your last name?

just wondering ...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, Ethiopian names tend to be pretty religious in nature. My dad's full name translates into English as "Son of Zion, born of the Light." But I only got the 'Light' part in my last name... that's what I get for being a heathen I guess. (Although I should have gotten the Son of Zion part instead, but that's a long story)

> Sig Starts HEre <

http://www.singleparentconnection.net

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat May-22-04 06:44 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "you have the right idea"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

The father's first name becomes the childrens' last name. So for example, my dad's name is Tekletsion Tewolde Berhan, so by the Ethiopian way my last name should be Tekletsion. But my mom is American and she preferred doing it the standard Western way with us taking the father's last name, so that's how we did it. Which worked better in the long run I guess, cuz I don't have to constantly hear people butcher my last name the way they do with my father's first name.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-22-04 08:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "aorist tense"
In response to Reply # 36


          

I read your post and that comment about comparing Jesus to light went right over my head. And that stuff about your name is very interesting, but here is some info about the aorist.

Basically it is a use of the past tense that tells us that something happened without a whole lot of detail, and whatever happened is now finished. It is like if I said to you "I ate" I did not tell you what I ate, how good it was, and now I am done eating.

Here is a definition from my Greek Text Book.

The aorist tense " Presents an occurance in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make up of the occurance.

Sometimes people describe it as a snap shot. Like when you take a picture of something.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat May-22-04 09:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "RE: aorist tense"
In response to Reply # 44
Sat May-22-04 09:31 AM

  

          

>Sometimes people describe it as a snap shot. Like when you
>take a picture of something.

Thanks, that was a good analogy. I think I get it now.

>I read your post and that comment about comparing Jesus to
>light went right over my head.

Well, wave-particle duality basically explains that light simultaneously exibits properties of both a wave and a particle. This was long thought to be impossible, classical physics said it had to be either one or the other. So scientists debated over this for centuries, whether light was a wave or a particle. In the 1800's they found proof that it acts like a wave, so it became the widely accepted view that light was a wave. Then Einstein proved that light also acts as a particle (this is actually what he won the Nobel Prize for, not his theory of relativity).

So that really boggled peoples' minds, because they couldn't understand how it could act as both a wave and a particle, since that was counter-intuitive and seemed impossible according to classical physics. It was not fully understood or reconciled theoretically until quantum mechanics fully developed a bit later.

Anyway, the comparison I was making is to the theological debate over the nature of Jesus as to whether he is human, divine, or both at the same time. That was one of the big debates they had in the early church, and it seems to be a major theological point of contention people have against Christians that he can't be both at the same time - I'm sure you've heard that one before.

Anyway, it seems like an interesting parallel to the scientific debate over the nature of light, whether it was a particle, a wave, or both, because scientists used to have the same arguments, they said it had to be either one or the other. But it turned out that it's actually both at the same time.

I don't know if that explained it or just confused you more, but that's what I was talking about.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-22-04 01:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "I think I get it"
In response to Reply # 50


          

But I won't use in a debate or even in a sunday school class, because I'd probably screw it up. The problem is 1) I am not good a science or math. (hence that is why I am in seminary) 2. Most anologies usually fall short when trying to define God since he is infinite. But I'll tell you what if a respected theologian goes first and uses it, I'm all over it.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sun May-23-04 04:20 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "RE: I think I get it"
In response to Reply # 54


  

          

Yeah, unless you already understand the science behind it you probably shouldn't use it. I just thought it was an interesting analogy though.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mcneter

Fri May-21-04 12:03 AM

  
2. "RE: Trinity debate/discussion"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Your understanding and description of the spiritual significance of the mysteries of Heru, Ausar, and Auset is inaccurate. As is your understanding of the original practice of the Hindu system. I must go to work, but I will explain later. Hetep.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 02:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "hebrew word for trinity"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Is there a Hebrew word for Trinity? One that implies three-in-one, and not just triplet, or three.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 03:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: hebrew word for trinity"
In response to Reply # 3


          

>Is there a Hebrew word for Trinity? One that implies
>three-in-one, and not just triplet, or three.

Response: Not to my knowledge, but if there was one, it would be a translation of the trinity and would mean the same thing.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
23. "RE: hebrew word for trinity"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

>Response: Not to my knowledge, but if there was one, it
>would be a translation of the trinity and would mean the
>same thing.

There isnt one. Because the concept is unconceivable to the Semetic monotheistic mind. Only when the teachings of jesus reach the Pagans do they get distorted and coopted into a pagan conceptualisation.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: hebrew word for trinity"
In response to Reply # 23


          

>
>There isnt one. Because the concept is unconceivable to the
>Semetic monotheistic mind. Only when the teachings of jesus
>reach the Pagans do they get distorted and coopted into a
>pagan conceptualisation.

Response: LOL, the NT authors were all Jews, and they are the ones explaining the trinity not pagans.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
32. "RE: hebrew word for trinity"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

>Response: LOL, the NT authors were all Jews, and they are
>the ones explaining the trinity not pagans.

I thought the word trinity was never in the bible. so is it or isnt it?


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 02:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "RE: hebrew word for trinity"
In response to Reply # 32


          

>
>I thought the word trinity was never in the bible. so is it
>or isnt it?

Response: I did not say that the word trinity is in the Bible, but rather the apostles explained it through their theology.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Sun May-23-04 10:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
60. "where?"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

where did they say 'three-in-one'? or 'one of three'?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon May-24-04 11:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "RE: where?"
In response to Reply # 60


          

>where did they say 'three-in-one'? or 'one of three'?

Response: It does not say those excate words perse, and actually I never said that it did. The fact remains that scripture calls all three persons God in the highest sense, and it also maintains that there is only one God. That is what I meant by saying that scripture implies trinity.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Tue May-25-04 02:59 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "Nowhere, nowhere AT ALL."
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

The trinity is a pagan invention that is not directly or indirectly taught in the Bible...

"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue May-25-04 03:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "RE: Nowhere, nowhere AT ALL."
In response to Reply # 73


          

>The trinity is a pagan invention that is not directly or
>indirectly taught in the Bible...

Response: But it is implied as I have already proven.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Tue May-25-04 03:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "Man you haven't proven a thing..."
In response to Reply # 74


  

          


"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 03:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
4. "Does god have a God?"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri May-21-04 03:18 AM

  

          

"Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.'" John 20:17

does god pray to himself, or worship himself too?

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:16

And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:17

and there again is the command to keep the commandments which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...

the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hhbrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"
B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the city." Hoshea (Hosea) 1

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mcneter

Fri May-21-04 03:31 AM

  
5. "RE: Does god have a God?"
In response to Reply # 4


          

>"Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet
>ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them,
>'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND
>YOUR GOD.'" John 20:17
>
>does god pray to himself, or worship himself too?
>Well put Malang
>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what
>good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
>Matthew 19:16
>
>And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS
>NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into
>life, keep the commandments.
>Matthew 19:17
>
>and there again is the command to keep the commandments
>which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...
>
>the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was
>a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on
>and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as
>a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."
>
>"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the
>'son of man/Adam' (a Hhbrew term meaning 'human being' as
>all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent:
>when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken,
>will He not make it good?"
>B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19
>
>"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds
>no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he
>returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish.
>Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in
>YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5
>
>"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not
>return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the
>Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the
>city." Hoshea (Hosea) 1

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 03:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "answer to John 20:17."
In response to Reply # 4


          

>"Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet
>ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them,
>'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND
>YOUR GOD.'" John 20:17

Response: The arguement is simple if Jesus can speak of His God, then He can't really be God, but must be something less (i.e a creature) who is called God but only in a "sort of fashion". Here is a maxim that needs to be addressed

" Difference in function does not indicate inferiority in nature or Being." Here the Father is described as Jesus' God. Since this is so, Jesus must be some sort of inferior being but go down a couple for verses to John 20:28.

John 20:28
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Here Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God, of course many will want to say that Thomas was swearing, the problem is that Thomas would not dare swear to his rabbi, while his rabbi was standing in front of him, nor would his rabbi condone such actions like Jesus does in the next verse.

John 20:29
Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

All John 20:17 is demonstrating is the fact that the Son is different than the Father. It was the Son who became incarnate, and since the Son, as the perfect man, acknowledged the Father as His God, He, himself, can't be fully deity. The arguement assumes that God could never enter human form. Why? Well, what would the Godman be like? If one person entered into human flesh, how would such a divine person act? Would he be an atheist and not acknowledge the other persons? No of course not, Jesus acts like we would expect him too.

Thomas recognized that Christ was fully God, and just because Jesus (keep in mind he was human) acknowledges his Father as being his God, many want to use this as an arguement against his own deity, however, Jesus is acting like we would expect him to as God-man.
>
>does god pray to himself, or worship himself too?

Response: No but all of creation worships him along with the Father.

Revelation 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

So if all of creation can worship him so can we.
>
>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what
>good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
>Matthew 19:16
>
>And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS
>NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into
>life, keep the commandments.
>Matthew 19:17
>
>and there again is the command to keep the commandments
>which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...

Response; The problem is that Jesus never says that he is not good, he is simply asking the ruler why are you calling me this? he is checking the implications of such a statement.
>
>the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was
>a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on
>and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as
>a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."

Response: Well he was a man, and he was also God.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 05:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
13. "RE: answer to John 20:17."
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

>Response: The arguement is simple if Jesus can speak of His
>God, then He can't really be God, but must be something less
>(i.e a creature) who is called God but only in a "sort of
>fashion". Here is a maxim that needs to be addressed
>
>" Difference in function does not indicate inferiority in
>nature or Being." Here the Father is described as Jesus'
>God. Since this is so, Jesus must be some sort of inferior
>being but go down a couple for verses to John 20:28.
>
>John 20:28
>Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
>
>Here Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God, of course many
>will want to say that Thomas was swearing, the problem is
>that Thomas would not dare swear to his rabbi, while his
>rabbi was standing in front of him, nor would his rabbi
>condone such actions like Jesus does in the next verse.

he is indeed not swearing, but he is in manner testifying and excaliming surprise and belief to eith both jesus AND to God OR in both cases to God. This is very common in Semitic tradition, even today. you will find arab and hebrew speaking jews, chrisians, and muslims exclaim "my God!" in addition to talking to the person...

>John 20:29
>Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you
>believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet
>believed."
>
>All John 20:17 is demonstrating is the fact that the Son is
>different than the Father. It was the Son who became
>incarnate, and since the Son, as the perfect man,
>acknowledged the Father as His God, He, himself, can't be
>fully deity. The arguement assumes that God could never
>enter human form. Why? Well, what would the Godman be like?
> If one person entered into human flesh, how would such a
>divine person act? Would he be an atheist and not
>acknowledge the other persons? No of course not, Jesus acts
>like we would expect him too.
>
>Thomas recognized that Christ was fully God, and just
>because Jesus (keep in mind he was human) acknowledges his
>Father as being his God, many want to use this as an
>arguement against his own deity, however, Jesus is acting
>like we would expect him to as God-man.

so if its meant to be a lesson for the public, to show them to worship the Almighty God, why does Jesus still pray to God in private? why is there seperation between his will and God's Will? and indeed this is in private, not for the rest. even the apostles stand back and away at this moment...

Matthew 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will."
Matthew 26:42 "My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, then let your will be done."

and then:

You heard me say to you, 'I am leaving, but I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father; for he is greater than I. John 14:28

can two things be equal yet one be greater? please answer without neoplatonic (read: pagan) metaphysics.

>Revelation 5:13
>And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth
>and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them,
>I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the
>Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever
>and ever."
>
>So if all of creation can worship him so can we.

indeed all creation does/should worship the true God, but the above verse is invoking or sending blessings, honor and glory to them. Both the JEws and the Muslims (again that Semetic tradition) also do this to their Prophets as well. it doen not mention worship.

>>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good* Master, what
>>good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
>>Matthew 19:16
>>
>>And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS
>>NONE GOOD BUT ONE, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into
>>life, keep the commandments.
>>Matthew 19:17
>>
>>and there again is the command to keep the commandments
>>which Paul, and not Jesus, tries to put away...
>
>Response; The problem is that Jesus never says that he is
>not good, he is simply asking the ruler why are you calling
>me this? he is checking the implications of such a
>statement.

WHAT? he says "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD" this is clearly referring to himself; and then "BUT GOD" clearly differentiates between himself and God. IF the person of Jesus was implied in "God" why would he say "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?"

>>the Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was
>>a man; who hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on
>>and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as
>>a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man."
>
>Response: Well he was a man, and he was also God.

uh, ok.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: answer to John 20:17."
In response to Reply # 13


          

>he is indeed not swearing, but he is in manner testifying
>and excaliming surprise and belief to eith both jesus AND to
>God OR in both cases to God. This is very common in Semitic
>tradition, even today. you will find arab and hebrew
>speaking jews, chrisians, and muslims exclaim "my God!" in
>addition to talking to the person...

Response: Again, the expressin *MY GOD* is swearing and taking the Lord's name in vein, he would not make that exclamation in front of his rabbi, especially in light of the ten commandements. You shall not take the Lord's name in vein.

It is more plausible that Thomas was calling him his God since right before it he calls him his Lord. Hard to imagine he is being calm for My Lord and then all of a sudden exclaims my God!!

>so if its meant to be a lesson for the public, to show them
>to worship the Almighty God, why does Jesus still pray to
>God in private?

Response: You are assuming that Jesus prays in the same way that you and I pray, for his prayers are communion and communication for what he must do as a human, especially since only pagans pray in public in order to be seen. ( Matt 6:5)

why is there seperation between his will and
>God's Will? and indeed this is in private, not for the rest.
>even the apostles stand back and away at this moment...

Response: There is no seperation of wills here, for the Son then says, not my will but yours. The Son being human does not want to suffer wrath ask the Father if it is *possible* , he does not go outside of the will of his Father. And that is a resonable question to ask.

>and then:
>
>You heard me say to you, 'I am leaving, but I will come back
>to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going
>to the Father; for he is greater than I. John 14:28
>
>can two things be equal yet one be greater? please answer
>without neoplatonic (read: pagan) metaphysics.

Response: Yes, ( I am going to give a full explaination of this verse later on) But in brief yes, because if one reads all of John 14 Jesus is talking about leaving them,( he is not talking about the Father being a superior being) and he is rebuking them because they have not rejoiced at this fact. Why rejoice? Because he is going to the Father who is greater, meaning that he being a man would no longer be on earth, but will return to the Father who is in a greater position. Therefore they should rejoice, because the Son is going to be re-glorified with the Father, so in short the Father is greater because of where he is, his position was greater than the Son, who was on earth, and now he is going to return to that position that he once shared.

>indeed all creation does/should worship the true God, but
>the above verse is invoking or sending blessings, honor and
>glory to them. Both the JEws and the Muslims (again that
>Semetic tradition) also do this to their Prophets as well.
>it doen not mention worship.

Response: But God says that he does not share his glory with another.

Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images.


Futhermore in light of the ten commandments, we should not worshipp anyone but God, to worship others is committing idolatry. Therefore Jesus has to God otherwise all of creation is committing idolatry.
>>WHAT? he says "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD"
>this is clearly referring to himself; and then "BUT GOD"
>clearly differentiates between himself and God. IF the
>person of Jesus was implied in "God" why would he say "WHY
>CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?"

Response: To check the implicatoin of the one speaking, in other words he is asking the man "Do you really understand what you are saying to me when you call me this?"
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Sun May-23-04 11:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
61. "RE: answer to John 20:17."
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

>Response: Again, the expressin *MY GOD* is swearing and
>taking the Lord's name in vein, he would not make that
>exclamation in front of his rabbi, especially in light of
>the ten commandements. You shall not take the Lord's name
>in vein.

its not swearing. the name shal not be taken 'in vain.' if one is amazed by the works or words of God or a Prophet, esp if it is something beyond belief, it is common in semetic history and culture to excalim "My God!" to both signify belief in God or a Prophet, and to show belief in the work.

>>so if its meant to be a lesson for the public, to show them
>>to worship the Almighty God, why does Jesus still pray to
>>God in private?
>
>Response: You are assuming that Jesus prays in the same way
>that you and I pray, for his prayers are communion and
>communication for what he must do as a human

DOES it matter how he prays? why would 'God' need to pray? prayer AND communication involve TWO.

>especially
>since only pagans pray in public in order to be seen. ( Matt
>6:5)

this is contextually irrelevent here.

> why is there seperation between his will and
>>God's Will? and indeed this is in private, not for the rest.
>>even the apostles stand back and away at this moment...
>
>Response: There is no seperation of wills here, for the Son
>then says, not my will but yours.

My will and Your will. sounds like a seperation to me.

>The Son being human does
>not want to suffer wrath ask the Father if it is *possible*
>, he does not go outside of the will of his Father. And
>that is a resonable question to ask.

Sounds like a Prophet and human servant of God looking and asking God for help and guidance...

>Response: But God says that he does not share his glory with
>another.

i dont get these mental gymnastics. it is easier to multiply Godhood, than to understand who glory is ascribed to? The glory of God is not the same as the Glory of god's Creations, and of God miracles and wonders, and of God's prophets.

>Isaiah 42:8
>"I am the LORD, that is My name;
>I will not give My glory to another,
>Nor My praise to graven images.

MY glory. the Glory that is DUE to God. it doesnt mean that NO ONE ELSE SHALL HAVE GLORY. but you dont ascribe the glory of being Creator, or pray to someone else.

>>>WHAT? he says "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? THERE IS NONE GOOD"
>>this is clearly referring to himself; and then "BUT GOD"
>>clearly differentiates between himself and God. IF the
>>person of Jesus was implied in "God" why would he say "WHY
>>CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?"
>
>Response: To check the implicatoin of the one speaking, in
>other words he is asking the man "Do you really understand
>what you are saying to me when you call me this?"

uh, why dont you share the implication. it seems Jesus is stopping them from ascribing Godhood (or equity) to him.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon May-24-04 11:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "RE: answer to John 20:17."
In response to Reply # 61


          

>
>its not swearing. the name shal not be taken 'in vain.' if
>one is amazed by the works or words of God or a Prophet, esp
>if it is something beyond belief, it is common in semetic
>history and culture to excalim "My God!" to both signify
>belief in God or a Prophet, and to show belief in the work.

Response: You are making stuff up here, it is not common amonst Jews to say *My God* and it be ok. Remember these are the same Jews who don't even pronounce the name of YHWH and replace it with Hashem. So *My God* is taking the name of the Lord in vein.
>
>DOES it matter how he prays? why would 'God' need to pray?
>prayer AND communication involve TWO.

Response; Right two persons were communicating, the Father to the Son. And Jesus does not need prayer, but communication with the Father was a must since he was to be obediant to the Father on earth as a human and became submissive to his will. (Phil ) Notice it says that Christ was in the existance of God and humbled himself, not the Father, but he humbled himself.
>My will and Your will. sounds like a seperation to me.

Response; My will and not your will would be seperation.
>
>Sounds like a Prophet and human servant of God looking and
>asking God for help and guidance...

Response: Since I believe that Jesus was also fully human and a prophet, I have no problem with him asking the Father for guidance while on earth.

>i dont get these mental gymnastics. it is easier to multiply
>Godhood, than to understand who glory is ascribed to? The
>glory of God is not the same as the Glory of god's
>Creations, and of God miracles and wonders, and of God's
>prophets.

Response; Well I agree the glory of GOd is different than the creation, the only problem is the Son recieves the same glory as the Father here...

Revelation 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

>MY glory. the Glory that is DUE to God. it doesnt mean that
>NO ONE ELSE SHALL HAVE GLORY. but you dont ascribe the glory
>of being Creator, or pray to someone else.

Response: Well I agree except here Jesus recieves the same as the Father.

Revelation 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

>
>uh, why dont you share the implication. it seems Jesus is
>stopping them from ascribing Godhood (or equity) to him.

Response: Where do you see Jesus even talking about his own deity or his own nature in that passage.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Sun May-23-04 10:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
59. ""Well he was a man, and he was also God""
In response to Reply # 8
Sun May-23-04 11:23 PM

  

          

>Response: Well he was a man, and he was also God.

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hhbrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"
B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the city." Hoshea (Hosea) 1


-God IS NOT a man
-AND GOD IS NOT THE SON OF MAN. how many times does Jesus call himself "Son of Man?"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon May-24-04 11:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "but those verses don't say"
In response to Reply # 59


          

That God could not enter human form. It says that he is not a man, but that does not mean that he could not enter human form, nor does it make it impossible for him to do so.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Fri May-21-04 04:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "You opened up with a mouthful...but I'll address"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

John 1:1 first:
>John 1:1
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
>and the Word was God.

>Malachi will no doubt try to convince you that it should
>read an the Word was a god.
Yes John 1:1 is more accurately translated:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Let me explain why...and osoclasi has mentioned that Greek grammar doesn't demand that it read "a god"...but let me tell you why it IS consistent with the rules Greek grammar. Greek scholar Philip B. Harner, in his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", said that clauses like the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos(word) has the nature of theos(God)" He goes on to say that "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'"(Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp.85,87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word "theos" in it's second occurence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 0, the King James version, as well as others, refers to Judas Iscariot as "a Devil", and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet". So WHY is it that at John 1:1, Greek grammar "doesn't demand" that the indefinite article "a" be used, but at John 0 and John 9:17 it does? I'll tell you why, IT IS A BLATANT AND OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Many Bible Scholars feel the same way. In the book "Dictionary of the Bible", John L McKenzie writes "John 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God, and the word was a divine being.'"

In harmony with the above, The American Translation reads: "the Word was divine"; Moffatt's translation reads: "the Logos was divine"; The New Testament in an Improved Version reads: "the word was a god".

(Sorry I took so long to respond, it's been mad busy here at work.)



"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "John 1:1 in brief"
In response to Reply # 10


          

>"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
>and the Word was a god."
>
>Let me explain why...and osoclasi has mentioned that Greek
>grammar doesn't demand that it read "a god"...but let me
>tell you why it IS consistent with the rules Greek grammar.

Response: Actually it is very consistant with Greek grammer. By the way I am going to be using the GNT ( Greek New Testament) for all of my Greek grammer.
>
>Thus, in this text, the fact that the word "theos" in it's
>second occurence is without the definite article (ho) and is
>placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is
>significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on
>rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to
>use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of
>other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun
>occurs before the verb. Thus at John 0, the King James
>version, as well as others, refers to Judas Iscariot as "a
>Devil", and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet".
> So WHY is it that at John 1:1, Greek grammar "doesn't
>demand" that the indefinite article "a" be used, but at John
> 0 and John 9:17 it does? I'll tell you why, IT IS A
>BLATANT AND OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE
>TRINITY.

Response: First of all, just because THeos is anathorous (without the article) does not mean that it must be translated as *a god*. For instance, in 2 Cor 5:19 Theos does not have the article and it is refering to the Father, notice the following...

hos hoti ***Theos*** hen en Christo kosmon katallasson eauton.

As that God was reconcilling the world to himself through Christ, now no one would translate this verse as * a god was reconcilling himself..." So this is clear that just because a word in anathorous that it has to be indefinite.

And in regards to John 0 the reason that the indefinite article was chosen was because of the context. We already know that there is a real satan, and as a matter of fact we know that Judas is not the real devil, so the definite article would not fit, neither would the qualitative usage because Jesus is not saying that he is the nature of the devil so the only option left is indefinite *a devil*.

Same with John 9:17 we know that there were many prophets, so to call him *the prophet* would not make sense, nor using a qualitative usage, so we use an indefinite meaning that Jesus belong to a class of prophets and is one from many.
>
>Many Bible Scholars feel the same way. In the book
>"Dictionary of the Bible", John L McKenzie writes "John 1:1
>should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God,
>and the word was a divine being.'"

Response: Well McKenzie might feel that way, but he must refute the qualative use of the noun Theos, and must ignore the imperfect use of en in John 1:1.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 04:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

>Or my favorite, is that in 325 A.D. the
>catholic church along with Constantine (who was not a
>Theologian and could care less) got together and conspired
>to make God three persons. (Even though there are first and
>second century Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis who
>believed in the Deity of Christ).

just noticed this....

are you implying that the beef between Arius and Athanasius (whose creed you posted) was imaginary? Didnt Eusebius also side with Arius?

and I wonder about whether Constantine 'could care less.' Constantine considered himslef as a god-incarnate, and was a worshipper of the 'unconquered' Sun. and it was CONSTANTINE who initially sided with Athanasius. he later changed his mind, and recalled Arius from exile. But he was later reversed by the next emperor Constantius who again recalled athanius.

oddly enough the WHOLE DISCUSSION from both sides was based on neoplatonic metaphysics...

a brief timeline:

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was a theological power grab by a faction of the church. A major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved and directed the outcome. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. In 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next.

In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church.

The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up with force.

For the most part, the Trinitarian church has silenced critical thought and dealt treacherously with anyone of open mind and free thought. In the 1670's, Isaac Newton quietly studied the Trinity and came to the conclusion that the doctrine was foisted on the Church by Athanasius in order to swell the numbers and fill the coffers. He concluded Arius was right and he claimed that the Bible had prophesied the Rise of Trinitarianism("this strange religion of the west", the cult of 3 equal gods) as the abomination of desolation. -- The Rise of Science and Decline of Orthodox Christianity. A study of Kepler, Descartes and Newton. After Newton, others such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Gottfried Arnold, Goerg Walch, Giovanni


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?"
In response to Reply # 11


          

>
>just noticed this....
>
>are you implying that the beef between Arius and Athanasius
>(whose creed you posted) was imaginary? Didnt Eusebius also
>side with Arius?

Response: No, I am saying that the belief in the trinity did not start here as some imply, there were church Fathers before this council who believed in the deity of Christ. Which Eusebius? There were two of them.
>
>and I wonder about whether Constantine 'could care less.'
>Constantine considered himslef as a god-incarnate, and was a
>worshipper of the 'unconquered' Sun. and it was CONSTANTINE
>who initially sided with Athanasius. he later changed his
>mind, and recalled Arius from exile. But he was later
>reversed by the next emperor Constantius who again recalled
>athanius.

Response: What I meant is that Constantine did not care which side won, as long as he got unity.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
25. "RE: The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?"
In response to Reply # 21
Fri May-21-04 07:13 AM

  

          

>Response: No, I am saying that the belief in the trinity did
>not start here as some imply, there were church Fathers
>before this council who believed in the deity of Christ.

as there were ones who did not. but the outcome was decided and authorised by the roman and pagan emperors.

>Which Eusebius? There were two of them.

of nicodemia


>>and I wonder about whether Constantine 'could care less.'
>>Constantine considered himslef as a god-incarnate, and was a
>>worshipper of the 'unconquered' Sun. and it was CONSTANTINE
>>who initially sided with Athanasius. he later changed his
>>mind, and recalled Arius from exile. But he was later
>>reversed by the next emperor Constantius who again recalled
>>athanius.
>
>Response: What I meant is that Constantine did not care
>which side won, as long as he got unity.

didnt care? the emperor covened and oversaw the councils. he threw his support and authorty behind athanasius, then Arius, and then again Athanasius. and GAVE them legitimacy. of coruse a pagan mind and beleiver is going to be more recptive to ideas that fit their worldview. even asides from that, no one doubts that legitmay was authorised by the approval of the emperor. Christians like to say well Constantine became Christian and thus did what was in the best interest of Christianity, but he didnt become Chrisian until he was on his deathbed.

until before then Constantine was a follower of the the 'unconquered sun' (invitus Sol) the romanised version of mithra. Mithra oddly enough had his birthday on december 25th (no infulence huh?), and was the "Son" of the Sun-god and the 'saviour' of the world.

A Mithraic verse: "Be of good cheer, sacred band of Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and sufferings shall be your salvation." sounds familiar?

both the Vatican hill and tarsus (where paul was from) were central sites for mithraic rituals.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "RE: The Nicene had nothing to do with trinity?"
In response to Reply # 25


          


>
>of nicodemia

Response; Yeah he wanted to overthrow the council.
>>didnt care? the emperor covened and oversaw the councils. he
>threw his support and authorty behind athanasius, then
>Arius, and then again Athanasius. and GAVE them legitimacy.
>of coruse a pagan mind and beleiver is going to be more
>recptive to ideas that fit their worldview. even asides from
>that, no one doubts that legitmay was authorised by the
>approval of the emperor. Christians like to say well
>Constantine became Christian and thus did what was in the
>best interest of Christianity, but he didnt become Chrisian
>until he was on his deathbed.

Response: No I meant that he did not call the council because of his deep concearn of scripture interpretation, he called the council in order to gain peace and unity. As long as he got that he did not care.
>
>A Mithraic verse: "Be of good cheer, sacred band of
>Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and
>sufferings shall be your salvation." sounds familiar?

Response: Nope not really, the Mithra arguements are no longer used by scholars opposed to the resurrection of Christ, they have long been refuted. Hard to imagine Christians copying from Hinduism and Mithraic verses all at the same time.
>
>both the Vatican hill and tarsus (where paul was from) were
>central sites for mithraic rituals.

Response: That is fine.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Abdurrashid
Member since Jun 20th 2002
15939 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
28. "your history of the Nicea Council is off..."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

I noticed that in the first post....



"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb
My PSA: "Soca muzik a run tings"

Alhamdullah For Everything!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Fri May-21-04 04:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "Titus 2:13"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


>Titus 2:13
>looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory
>of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

osoclasi is trying to argue that this proves the Trinity. This is another example of "selective translating" in an attempt to prove this shaky doctrine. A more accurate reading would be:

"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Using whatever translation of the Bible osoclasi is using, it might be construed that Jesus is both Almighty God and Savior, but the same rule of translation is not applied in translating 2 Thessalonians 1:12 or Titus 1:4. YOU CAN'T APPLY RULES OF TRANSLATING GREEK ONLY WHEN IT FITS IN "DEFENSE" OF THE TRINITY, AND NOT APPLY THEM OTHER TIMES.

That is PRECISELY why in the book "The Greek Testament", Henry Alford states: "I would submit that a rendering that CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATES God and Christ at Titus 2:13 satisfies ALL THE GRAMMATICAL REQUIREMENTS of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."

"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "Grandville Sharp's rule"
In response to Reply # 12


          

>>
>osoclasi is trying to argue that this proves the Trinity.
>This is another example of "selective translating" in an
>attempt to prove this shaky doctrine. A more accurate
>reading would be:
>
>"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation
>of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Response: Actually no, Greek does not have commas.
>
>Using whatever translation of the Bible osoclasi is using,

Response: I am using the GNT. (Greek New Testament) I told you that I study Greek and Hebrew.

>it might be construed that Jesus is both Almighty God and
>Savior, but the same rule of translation is not applied in
>translating 2 Thessalonians 1:12 or Titus 1:4. YOU CAN'T
>APPLY RULES OF TRANSLATING GREEK ONLY WHEN IT FITS IN
>"DEFENSE" OF THE TRINITY, AND NOT APPLY THEM OTHER TIMES.

Response: I did'nt those verses do not share the same construction as Titus 2:13. Well 2 Thess does but Titus 1:4 does not. Notice the following...

In Greek we have a rule called Grandville Sharp's rule inwhich when you see the construction article substantive kai substantive
it is refering to the same person. But the substantive cannot be impersonal, plural, or abstract. If you think I am making this up look in Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics by Daniel B Wallace.

For instance in 1 Peter we have...

ho theos kai pater tou Kuriou.

the God and Father of our Lord, now notice you have the article ho followed by the substantive Theos, the conjuction kai, then substantive Pater(Father), so God and Father is refering to the same person. Same with Titus 2:13 without commas

Titus 2:13
tou megalou theou kai soteros our Iesou Christou

Article: tou, substantive :theou, conjuction kai: substantive Iesou. So we Our great God and saviour Jesus Chirst is refering to the same person.

Now your verses 2 Thess 1:12 agrees with Grandville Sharp therefore Paul is saying our God and Jesus Christ are the same person. But Titus 1:4 does not...

apo Theou patros kai Christou Iesou.

Notice there is no article there, so this falls out of Grandville Sharp's rule.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Sat May-22-04 06:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "Why this is a RIDICULOUS COMMENT:"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          


>Response: Actually no, Greek does not have commas.

BUT ENGLISH DOES HAVE COMMAS!!! When you translate The Greek Scriptures into English, you do so using the English laws of grammar! Based on that comment, are you saying that EVERYWHERE THERE IS A COMMA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, the comma should be taken out because the NT was originally written in Greek? No, that would be stupid. Like I said before, SELECTIVE TRANSLATING WITH A TRINITARIAN BIAS.

"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-22-04 08:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "I was being silly"
In response to Reply # 39


          


>
>BUT ENGLISH DOES HAVE COMMAS!!!

Response: So, what we want is the apostles intent, not the translators.

When you translate The
>Greek Scriptures into English, you do so using the English
>laws of grammar!

Response: English grammer does not change Greek grammer, if Paul meant to say that Jesus was our great God and Savior then that is the way that it should be translated.

Based on that comment, are you saying that
>EVERYWHERE THERE IS A COMMA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, the comma
>should be taken out because the NT was originally written in
>Greek?

Response: No, I am saying don't hold your theology on something that is not in the text to begin with but inserted later.

No, that would be stupid. Like I said before,
>SELECTIVE TRANSLATING WITH A TRINITARIAN BIAS.

Response: Get real, english grammer does not override Greek grammer, that comma is there in your NWT based off of their theology not being honest with the text.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
14. "Did God create god?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

"The LORD created (Qanah/EKTISEN) me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. Proverb 8:22

as much as christians like to mistranslate that as possessed, the real translation is CREATED or FORMED, the same as in Mark 13:19

so God created himself? We know God has existed ALWAYS, without beginning and without end.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "Christ is uncreated"
In response to Reply # 14


          

>"The LORD created (Qanah/EKTISEN) me first of all, the first
>of his works, long ago. Proverb 8:22

Response; First of all, wisdo9n in that passage is being personified, you don't personify people. Since Christ is a person, he is not being discussed in that passage, by the way wisdom in the next chapter is refered to as a woman, sort of hard to read Christ into that chapter.
>
>as much as christians like to mistranslate that as
>possessed, the real translation is CREATED or FORMED, the
>same as in Mark 13:19

Response: Qanah does mean possessed, the majority of the time, however it can also mean create, but again I have already demonstrated why that verse is not talking about Christ.
>
>so God created himself? We know God has existed ALWAYS,
>without beginning and without end.

Response: Again, Christ is uncreated.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
btony

Tue May-25-04 04:20 PM

  
79. "Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 26


          

Osoclasi,

You deny that Christ the personifier of Wisdom? Are you aware this is against all of the ANF? Consider the following:

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book I, para. 44, 45. "And so Wisdom, after declaring that it is mindful to speak of the things which date from the beginning of the ages, says, The Lord created Me for the beginning of His ways for His works, by these words denoting things performed from the date of the beginning of the ages. . . And first, since Christ is Wisdom, we must see whether He is Himself the beginning of the way of the works of God."

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter VII. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: "The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me."

St. Aurelius Augustin, A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter IV, para. 6. "There is a reference to this in the word, 'The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.' For the beginning of His ways is the Head of the Church, which is Christ..."

Those are just a few of MANY. Most commentators agree that Jesus is wisdom as well. The New Jerusalem Bible explains in a footnote on Prov. 8 (p. 977e): "John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his Gospel throughout representis Christ as the Wisdom of God…. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees the in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself."

Regards,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 03:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "RE: Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 79


          

>Osoclasi,
>
>You deny that Christ the personifier of Wisdom? Are you
>aware this is against all of the ANF? Consider the
>following:
>
Response: Yep I don't think there is any exegetical grounds for linking Christ to wisdom in Proverbs 8, and there are a lot of areas where I disagree with some of the church fathers. I value there opinions but I do not base my own exegesis on them. Hence that is why I study the languages, so I can make my own decisions

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
btony

Wed May-26-04 03:26 AM

  
90. "RE: Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 89


          

This is interesting, because Christ seemed to identify himself as such.

Luke 11:49 On this account the wisdom of God also said, 'I will send forth to them prophets and apostles, and they will kill and persecute some of them,

Now note the following.

Matthew 23:34 For this reason, here I am sending forth to YOU prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of them YOU will kill and impale, and some of them YOU will scourge in YOUR synagogues and persecute from city to city;

The words are Christ's words, though he attributes them to Wisdom, which he himself is. Hence the Apostle Paul makes the identification as well.

1 Corinthians 1:24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

I might suggest you read C. F. Burney, "Christ as the APCH of Creation," Journal of Theological Studies 27, as it draws on the clear parallel between Prov 8:22, Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14.

Regards,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 04:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
103. "RE: Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 90


          

>This is interesting, because Christ seemed to identify
>himself as such.

Response: First of all before you go jumping out of context, in Proverbs wisdom is used as a guide for living a godly life style. Therefore proverbs 8 should be read in light of proverbs 1-9 since they all have the same context. For instance if Christ is wisdom who are understading and knowledge in Proverbs 3:19-20? It si obvious that wisdom is being personified here and as I stated before you do not personify people. Futhermore wisdom is also a she Proverbs 9:1 not a he.
>
>Luke 11:49 On this account the wisdom of God also said, 'I
>will send forth to them prophets and apostles, and they
>will kill and persecute some of them,
>
>Now note the following.
>
>Matthew 23:34 For this reason, here I am sending forth to
>YOU prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of
>them YOU will kill and impale, and some of them YOU will
>scourge in YOUR synagogues and persecute from city to city;
>
>The words are Christ's words, though he attributes them to
>Wisdom, which he himself is. Hence the Apostle Paul makes
>the identification as well.

Response: But you are reading the NT back into the OT, I will comment after the 1 Cor passage.
>
>1 Corinthians 1:24 however, to those who are the called,
>both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the
>wisdom of God.

Response: Calling Christ the wisdom of God is fine, however, the context of Matt,Luke and Cor is different than that of Proverbs, for one in the NT usage, Christ being called wisdom means that he is the wisdom to salvation. In Proverbs however, Wisdom is being used as wisdom to living a godly life, as noted above you have ignored the intended context in which proverbs must be read. I will be back later on I gotta run to work.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
btony

Wed May-26-04 04:39 AM

  
105. "RE: Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 103


          

>>This is interesting, because Christ seemed to identify
>>himself as such.
>
>Response: First of all before you go jumping out of context,
>in Proverbs wisdom is used as a guide for living a godly
>life style. Therefore proverbs 8 should be read in light of
>proverbs 1-9 since they all have the same context. For
>instance if Christ is wisdom who are understading and
>knowledge in Proverbs 3:19-20? It si obvious that wisdom is
>being personified here and as I stated before you do not
>personify people. Futhermore wisdom is also a she Proverbs
>9:1 not a he.

Reply: Wisdom is the one identified as understanding in Prov 8:14. Knowledge is never personified, so it is not an issue. Yes, you do not peronify people, but people personify things, and Jesus is the personifier of wisdom.

Regarding Wisdom being a she, that is only because CHOKMAH is feminine in Hebrew. Is Solomon a she because he is called congregator, which is feminine in Hebrew? Or how about Naphtali who in Genesis 49:21 is called a female deer who produces fawns!? Rather, we know the one spoken of in Proverbs 8, though grammatically is feminine, has a natural masculine gender. We know this because in verse 30, the masculine AMON is used instead of the feminine AMONAH, where Wisdom is called either little child or master worker, depending on the translation (either are possible).

You write: Response: Calling Christ the wisdom of God is fine, however, the context of Matt,Luke and Cor is different than that of Proverbs, for one in the NT usage, Christ being called wisdom means that he is the wisdom to salvation. In Proverbs however, Wisdom is being used as wisdom to living a godly life, as noted above you have ignored the intended context in which proverbs must be read.

Reply: Let us see if that holds true.

The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis. )
The Word was with God (John 1:1)
Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
The Word is an agent in creation (John 1:1-3)
Wisdom is an agent in creation (Prov. 3:19, 8:25; Is. 7:21, 9:1-2)
The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir. 4:12)
Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 1 )
The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)
Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)
Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 1 , 11, 14)
Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-16; Sir. 24:19-22)
Christ is life (John 11:25)
Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)
Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)
Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)

The parallels between Jesus and Wisdom cannot be missed.

Regards,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 06:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
119. "RE: Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 105


          

>Reply: Wisdom is the one identified as understanding in
>Prov 8:14. Knowledge is never personified, so it is not an
>issue. Yes, you do not peronify people, but people
>personify things, and Jesus is the personifier of wisdom.

Response: Bad arguement you cannot just pick and chose when you want to start personifing things, if by wisdom God performed some acts and wisdom is a person, then guess what you need to explain who are knowledge and understanding. And people cannot become personifiers I think you made up something there. YOu personify inanimate objects such as rivers,rocks etc, not people. Clealy, your theology is driving you to this conclusion.
>
>Regarding Wisdom being a she, that is only because CHOKMAH
>is feminine in Hebrew. Is Solomon a she because he is
>called congregator, which is feminine in Hebrew?

Response: Ahh but here is the difference, Solomon is never refered to by a personal pronoun *she* wisdom is. Sorry.

Or how
>about Naphtali who in Genesis 49:21 is called a female deer
>who produces fawns!? Rather, we know the one spoken of in
>Proverbs 8, though grammatically is feminine, has a natural
>masculine gender. We know this because in verse 30, the
>masculine AMON is used instead of the feminine AMONAH, where
>Wisdom is called either little child or master worker,
>depending on the translation (either are possible).

Response: Titles can be feminine but Naphtali is not called her, or she or anything like wisdom is. By the way proverbs tells us that wisdom stands on the corner and shouts in the streets did Christ do this? And when it says to obtain wisdom are we to go grab Christ? and as far as it having a masculine gender does that mean now that Christ was both feminine and masculine at the same time? And are understanding and knowledge Peter and JOhn or are they Mark and Luke maybe they are Gabriel.

>Reply: Let us see if that holds true.

Response: Before I respond to the bottom, I notice that you said let's see if it holds true but did not address the context of 1 Cor, that should be how we know if it holds true, but oh well. Guess I'll do that tonight when I get my Bible.
>
>The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
>Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis.
> )

Response: Actually in Proverbs it says that the wisdom was at teh beginnign of God's ways, JOhn 1:1 does not say such. By the way should'nt there at least be a quote from John 1:1 of Proverbs 8?

>The Word was with God (John 1:1)

>Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
>The Word is an agent in creation (John 1:1-3)

Response: And wisdom was also a girl standing on a street corner.

>The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
>Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir.
>4:12)

Response: Actually the Logos was the light itself and it also provided light wisdom is nto the light itself.

>Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
>Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
>The Word was in the world (John 1:10)

Response; Whatever book Wis is I probably don't hold it to be canonical, sorry. Need to stay inbounds here. ANd before you start argueing about some book being canonical let's hold it till later.


>Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)

Response: Sorry I don't know what WIS and SIR are, unless those are Hebrew titles, and i am without my BHS until I get home.

>The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
>Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 1 )
>The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
>Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)

Response: Buzz, out of scripture, unless those are Hebrew titles those are not regarded as canonical.

>Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
>Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir.
>15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)

Response: In Prov 9 Wisdom is also a girl. and SIr and wis, well ya know the rest.

>The parallels between Jesus and Wisdom cannot be missed.

Respnose: Sure there are'nt any. By the way I erased the rest because I keep having the same answers if there one you really want me to respond to put it back up. Especially when I have my Bible in front of me.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
btony

Wed May-26-04 07:12 AM

  
132. "RE: Christ as Wisdom"
In response to Reply # 119


          

>>Reply: Wisdom is the one identified as understanding in
>>Prov 8:14. Knowledge is never personified, so it is not an
>>issue. Yes, you do not peronify people, but people
>>personify things, and Jesus is the personifier of wisdom.
>
>Response: Bad arguement you cannot just pick and chose when
>you want to start personifing things, if by wisdom God
>performed some acts and wisdom is a person, then guess what
>you need to explain who are knowledge and understanding.
>And people cannot become personifiers I think you made up
>something there. YOu personify inanimate objects such as
>rivers,rocks etc, not people. Clealy, your theology is
>driving you to this conclusion.
>>

Reply2: I'm not picking it, I'm going by whether or not scripture does it! Simply because scripture mentions something does not make it personified. People are not being personified, the attributes are being personified IN Christ.

>>Regarding Wisdom being a she, that is only because CHOKMAH
>>is feminine in Hebrew. Is Solomon a she because he is
>>called congregator, which is feminine in Hebrew?
>
>Response: Ahh but here is the difference, Solomon is never
>refered to by a personal pronoun *she* wisdom is. Sorry.

Reply2: This argument does not help your position. Grammatically, the congregator is a she. The only reason it is not rendered as such is because Solomon is indentified as such. The translators are following the GRAMMATICAL gender, because Wisdom in Hebrew is feminine. Obviously you've never studied any Hebrew.

>
> Or how
>>about Naphtali who in Genesis 49:21 is called a female deer
>>who produces fawns!? Rather, we know the one spoken of in
>>Proverbs 8, though grammatically is feminine, has a natural
>>masculine gender. We know this because in verse 30, the
>>masculine AMON is used instead of the feminine AMONAH, where
>>Wisdom is called either little child or master worker,
>>depending on the translation (either are possible).
>
>Response: Titles can be feminine but Naphtali is not called
>her, or she or anything like wisdom is. By the way proverbs
>tells us that wisdom stands on the corner and shouts in the
>streets did Christ do this? And when it says to obtain
>wisdom are we to go grab Christ? and as far as it having a
>masculine gender does that mean now that Christ was both
>feminine and masculine at the same time? And are
>understanding and knowledge Peter and JOhn or are they Mark
>and Luke maybe they are Gabriel.

Reply2: Again, you must distringuish between the attribute and the one in whom it is personified. Christ, as a spirit, does not technically have gender, if you want to be technical. CHOKMAH is a feminine noun, so grammatically it MUST be rendered in the feminine. Thus calling wisdom SHE has NO bearing on the natural gender of the person. However, using the masculine AMON was a decision, showing the NATURAL gender to be masculine, while only the grammar is feminine.

>
>>Reply: Let us see if that holds true.
>
>Response: Before I respond to the bottom, I notice that you
>said let's see if it holds true but did not address the
>context of 1 Cor, that should be how we know if it holds
>true, but oh well. Guess I'll do that tonight when I get my
>Bible.
>>
>>The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
>>Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis.
>> )
>
>Response: Actually in Proverbs it says that the wisdom was
>at teh beginnign of God's ways, JOhn 1:1 does not say such.
>By the way should'nt there at least be a quote from John 1:1
>of Proverbs 8?

Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ = beginning (Rev 3:14).

>
>>The Word was with God (John 1:1)
>
>>Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
>>The Word is an agent in creation (John 1:1-3)
>
>Response: And wisdom was also a girl standing on a street
>corner.

Reply2: GRAMMATICAL gender. It is just like in Greek... Though maybe you've not really studied Greek either. I'm starting to get that impression.

>
>>The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
>>Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir.
>>4:12)
>
>Response: Actually the Logos was the light itself and it
>also provided light wisdom is nto the light itself.

Reply2: Actually, Jesus reflects God's glory (Heb 1:3) as does Wisdom (Wisdom 7:26)



>>Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
>>Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
>>The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
>
>Response; Whatever book Wis is I probably don't hold it to
>be canonical, sorry. Need to stay inbounds here. ANd
>before you start argueing about some book being canonical
>let's hold it till later.

Reply2: Why? The LOGOS was adopted by John from Philo. We are considering the Jewish mindset.

>
>
>>Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
>
>Response: Sorry I don't know what WIS and SIR are, unless
>those are Hebrew titles, and i am without my BHS until I get
>home.
>
>>The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
>>Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 1 )
>>The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
>>Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
>
>Response: Buzz, out of scripture, unless those are Hebrew
>titles those are not regarded as canonical.
>
>>Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
>>Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir.
>>15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
>
>Response: In Prov 9 Wisdom is also a girl. and SIr and wis,
>well ya know the rest.

Reply2: Is that the best you can do? Wisdom is a girl GRAMMATICALLY, that does not mean naturally. Jesus is called Wisdom in Greek, and the noun is feminine in Greek too! This means nothing, it is no basis for argument.


>
>>The parallels between Jesus and Wisdom cannot be missed.
>
>Respnose: Sure there are'nt any. By the way I erased the
>rest because I keep having the same answers if there one you
>really want me to respond to put it back up. Especially
>when I have my Bible in front of me.

Reply2: You are in denial. You dismiss points based on opinion and assumption, not on text. You make arguments that have no foundation, such as the feminine issue, ignoring the fact that to anyone who knows even a little Hebrew, this is a non-issue. The feminine/masculine thing is entirely grammatical, and it has no basis whether or not Jesus is male or female.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 03:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
140. "people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 132


          

>
>Reply2: I'm not picking it, I'm going by whether or not
>scripture does it! Simply because scripture mentions
>something does not make it personified. People are not
>being personified, the attributes are being personified IN
>Christ.

Response: LOL what are you talking about? Attributes are not and cannot be personified within an actual peron. You are making up stuff here. You can only personify things that are not human, i.e my heart leaped for joy. People don't personify attributes, you are making stuff up to aid your theology, nice try, it is quite inventive.
>

>
>Reply2: This argument does not help your position.
>Grammatically, the congregator is a she. The only reason it
>is not rendered as such is because Solomon is indentified as
>such. The translators are following the GRAMMATICAL gender,
>because Wisdom in Hebrew is feminine. Obviously you've
>never studied any Hebrew.

Response: Are you refering to the qoholet? If you are that word is masculine not feminine.

Daber qoholet ben d'vid malek b'yerushalem
>
>
>Reply2: Again, you must distringuish between the attribute
>and the one in whom it is personified.

Response: That is because you are making this up people don't personify attributes. lol

Christ, as a spirit,
>does not technically have gender, if you want to be
>technical. CHOKMAH is a feminine noun, so grammatically it
>MUST be rendered in the feminine. Thus calling wisdom SHE
>has NO bearing on the natural gender of the person.

Response: Ever heard of an antecedent? It is the same gender and person as the word it modifies and it does reflect gender.


>However, using the masculine AMON was a decision, showing
>the NATURAL gender to be masculine, while only the grammar
>is feminine.

Response: But that could easily be translated as I was as an architech by his side. So Amon does not all of a sudden change the gender.

>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>= beginning (Rev 3:14).

REsponse: Hmm, still no exegesis of Corithians, and Rev 3:14 does not have to be translated as beginnning, originator or ruler fits as well. Since that is where we get the word archbishop= high ruler, monarch=sole ruler etc.
>>Reply2: GRAMMATICAL gender. It is just like in Greek...
>Though maybe you've not really studied Greek either. I'm
>starting to get that impression.

REsponse: Oh I am better than you think, I am just not agreeing with you here, seems to me like you are letting your theology guide your translation.
>

>
>Reply2: Why? The LOGOS was adopted by John from Philo. We
>are considering the Jewish mindset.

Response: But John does not use Logos the same as Philo. SO we needs John mindset.
>Reply2: Is that the best you can do? Wisdom is a girl
>GRAMMATICALLY, that does not mean naturally. Jesus is
>called Wisdom in Greek, and the noun is feminine in Greek
>too! This means nothing, it is no basis for argument.

Response: Actually that could be taken as a descriptive geninative in Greek so he is being desribed as something, not making him literally feminine.

>
>Reply2: You are in denial.

Response: Well at least I am not making up people personifying attributes that is hilarious.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
btony

Wed May-26-04 03:46 PM

  
141. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 140


          

>>
>>Reply2: I'm not picking it, I'm going by whether or not
>>scripture does it! Simply because scripture mentions
>>something does not make it personified. People are not
>>being personified, the attributes are being personified IN
>>Christ.
>
>Response: LOL what are you talking about? Attributes are not
>and cannot be personified within an actual peron. You are
>making up stuff here. You can only personify things that
>are not human, i.e my heart leaped for joy. People don't
>personify attributes, you are making stuff up to aid your
>theology, nice try, it is quite inventive.

Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the abstraction is represented.


>>
>
>>
>>Reply2: This argument does not help your position.
>>Grammatically, the congregator is a she. The only reason it
>>is not rendered as such is because Solomon is indentified as
>>such. The translators are following the GRAMMATICAL gender,
>>because Wisdom in Hebrew is feminine. Obviously you've
>>never studied any Hebrew.
>
>Response: Are you refering to the qoholet? If you are that
>word is masculine not feminine.
>
>Daber qoholet ben d'vid malek b'yerushalem
>>

Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal *****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm. §94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly, speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128; for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W. Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of Aramaic al'h]q'. †



>>
>>Reply2: Again, you must distringuish between the attribute
>>and the one in whom it is personified.
>
>Response: That is because you are making this up people
>don't personify attributes. lol

Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.

>
>Christ, as a spirit,
>>does not technically have gender, if you want to be
>>technical. CHOKMAH is a feminine noun, so grammatically it
>>MUST be rendered in the feminine. Thus calling wisdom SHE
>>has NO bearing on the natural gender of the person.
>
>Response: Ever heard of an antecedent? It is the same
>gender and person as the word it modifies and it does
>reflect gender.

Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.

>
>
>>However, using the masculine AMON was a decision, showing
>>the NATURAL gender to be masculine, while only the grammar
>>is feminine.
>
>Response: But that could easily be translated as I was as an
>architech by his side. So Amon does not all of a sudden
>change the gender.
>
>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>
>REsponse: Hmm, still no exegesis of Corithians, and Rev 3:14
>does not have to be translated as beginnning, originator or
>ruler fits as well. Since that is where we get the word
>archbishop= high ruler, monarch=sole ruler etc.
>>>Reply2: GRAMMATICAL gender. It is just like in Greek...
>>Though maybe you've not really studied Greek either. I'm
>>starting to get that impression.

Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG). ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler, that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.

>
>REsponse: Oh I am better than you think, I am just not
>agreeing with you here, seems to me like you are letting
>your theology guide your translation.
>>
>
>>
>>Reply2: Why? The LOGOS was adopted by John from Philo. We
>>are considering the Jewish mindset.
>
>Response: But John does not use Logos the same as Philo. SO
>we needs John mindset.

Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be John's basis for the use.

>>Reply2: Is that the best you can do? Wisdom is a girl
>>GRAMMATICALLY, that does not mean naturally. Jesus is
>>called Wisdom in Greek, and the noun is feminine in Greek
>>too! This means nothing, it is no basis for argument.
>
>Response: Actually that could be taken as a descriptive
>geninative in Greek so he is being desribed as something,
>not making him literally feminine.

Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine, however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate it with feminine pronouns.

>
>>
>>Reply2: You are in denial.
>
>Response: Well at least I am not making up people
>personifying attributes that is hilarious.
>
>

Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did). Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in the future.

To think of or represent (an inanimate object or abstraction) as having personality or the qualities, thoughts, or movements of a living: “To make history or psychology alive I personify it” (Anaïs Nin).
To represent (an object or abstraction) by a human figure.
To represent (an abstract quality or idea): This character personifies evil.
To be the embodiment or perfect example of: “Stalin now personified bolshevism in the eyes of the world” (A.J.P. Taylor).


Regards,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 05:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
146. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 141


          

>Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to
>personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under
>personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a
>human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the
>abstraction is represented.

Response: I see you did not put down the first defintion there, smooth. But that would make your arguement backwards now, because you mean to say that Christ is being represented in Prov 8 by wisdom not vice verse. So that defintion does not apply here by the way you never did tell me who understanding and knowledge were.
>>>>
>Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice
>what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal
>*****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm.
>§94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus
>paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly,
>speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128;
>for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard
>L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W.
>Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the
>fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of
>Aramaic al'h]q'. †

REsponse: That is weird that is the first time I ever seen HALOT disagree with my software, but it still is no problem for these reasons.

1. The context tells us that the teacher is the son of David not daughter or david, wisdom in PRoverbs 8 has no such context.

2.It is known that when feminine forms are used for male referents as in arabic, ethopic and aramaic it denotes a professional title or vocational office. Such as the word scribe. So again this is not a problem.

>
>Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.

Response; Might want to rethink that one.
>>Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the
>context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.

Response: The person is identified as a male however, ya know the part that calls him the son of david.

>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).

Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math here.
>Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable
>translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG).
>ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as
>such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler,
>that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.

Response: Hmm on page 138 of BDAG it says "the first cause, the beginning, it says your view is probable however. Although I think that arche normally means ruler since that is where we get monarch and archbishop or arch angel from and scripture speaks of rulers as arche as well.
>Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be
>John's basis for the use.

Response: Sure although someone on this site showed me something from hinduism that looks interesting it is up above in this post one of the first post.
>
>Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine,
>however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him
>the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate
>it with feminine pronouns.

Response: Sure, but that does not happen here in the Bible. The subject is always identified or context tells whether the person being discussed is male or female.
>Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before
>you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did).
>Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in
>the future.

Response: Oh good hte complete entry, I was wondering, but I answered this already.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
btony

Wed May-26-04 07:12 PM

  
154. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 146


          

>>Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to
>>personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under
>>personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a
>>human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the
>>abstraction is represented.
>
>Response: I see you did not put down the first defintion
>there, smooth. But that would make your arguement backwards
>now, because you mean to say that Christ is being
>represented in Prov 8 by wisdom not vice verse. So that
>defintion does not apply here by the way you never did tell
>me who understanding and knowledge were.

Reply4: I put the applicable entry. I don't mean to say Christ is being represented by Wisdom, I mean to say EXACTLY what I said. Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, when when Wisdom is personified in Proverbs at, as the personifier of it, it is Christ. As for understanding, as I pointed out, Prov 8:14 identifies this to be the same as who Wisdom is. For knowledge, please show me where knowledge is personified. If it is not personified, how is there a person who is the personifier? There can't be!


>>>>>
>>Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice
>>what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal
>>*****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm.
>>§94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus
>>paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly,
>>speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128;
>>for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard
>>L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W.
>>Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the
>>fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of
>>Aramaic al'h]q'. †
>
>REsponse: That is weird that is the first time I ever seen
>HALOT disagree with my software, but it still is no problem
>for these reasons.
>
>1. The context tells us that the teacher is the son of David
>not daughter or david, wisdom in PRoverbs 8 has no such
>context.
>
>2.It is known that when feminine forms are used for male
>referents as in arabic, ethopic and aramaic it denotes a
>professional title or vocational office. Such as the word
>scribe. So again this is not a problem.
>

Reply4: It is not supposed to be a "problem" but it demonstrates that the grammatical gender can be feminine (ala Prov 8) but the natural gender is masculine (as the use of AMON in prov 8:30 demonstrates).

>>
>>Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.
>
>Response; Might want to rethink that one.
>>>Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the
>>context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.
>
>Response: The person is identified as a male however, ya
>know the part that calls him the son of david.
>

Reply4: And in Prov 8 Wisdom is called AMON, not AMONAH.

>>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>
>Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math
>here.
>>Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable
>>translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG).
>>ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as
>>such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler,
>>that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.
>
>Response: Hmm on page 138 of BDAG it says "the first cause,
>the beginning, it says your view is probable however.
>Although I think that arche normally means ruler since that
>is where we get monarch and archbishop or arch angel from
>and scripture speaks of rulers as arche as well.

Reply4: I've actually studied every use of ARCH in both the LXX and GNT, and when used as at Rev 3:14, it is almost unquestionably used with a first in time meaning.

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.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

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.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

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.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

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.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 2 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

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.

Proverbs The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

I could keep going but I'll stop.

>>Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be
>>John's basis for the use.
>
>Response: Sure although someone on this site showed me
>something from hinduism that looks interesting it is up
>above in this post one of the first post.
>>
>>Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine,
>>however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him
>>the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate
>>it with feminine pronouns.
>
>Response: Sure, but that does not happen here in the Bible.
>The subject is always identified or context tells whether
>the person being discussed is male or female.

Reply4: And Prov 8:30's use of AMON tells us that the natural gender is actually male!

>>Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before
>>you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did).
>>Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in
>>the future.
>
>Response: Oh good hte complete entry, I was wondering, but I
>answered this already.

Reply: Of course your answer was based on a strawman. Try actually replying to my position and not building a misrepresented position!

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu May-27-04 07:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
165. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 154


          

>Reply4: I put the applicable entry. I don't mean to say
>Christ is being represented by Wisdom, I mean to say EXACTLY
>what I said.

Response: Now you switched who is representing who now in Proverbs 8. Looks to me that wisdom is being personified not Christ.

Christ is the personifier of Wisdom,

Response: How do you gather that from proverbs 8? Christ is not even mentioned in the passage.

when when
>Wisdom is personified in Proverbs at, as the personifier of
>it, it is Christ.

Response: So how can wisdom be the representer of CHrist and Christ be the personifier of wisdom all at the same time? And how do you gather that from proverbs 8?

As for understanding, as I pointed out,
>Prov 8:14 identifies this to be the same as who Wisdom is.
>For knowledge, please show me where knowledge is
>personified. If it is not personified, how is there a
>person who is the personifier? There can't be!

Response: They are all used by God in the same context of creation it would be strang that one is a person and the others are not.

>Reply4: It is not supposed to be a "problem" but it
>demonstrates that the grammatical gender can be feminine
>(ala Prov 8) but the natural gender is masculine (as the use
>of AMON in prov 8:30 demonstrates).

Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.

>Reply4: And in Prov 8 Wisdom is called AMON, not AMONAH.

Response: Actually she is like an architech.
>
>>>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>>
>>Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math
>>here.
>Reply4: I've actually studied every use of ARCH in both the
>LXX and GNT, and when used as at Rev 3:14, it is almost
>unquestionably used with a first in time meaning.

Response: But you are ignoring the fact that it also means ruler as in eph 5.
>>Reply4: And Prov 8:30's use of AMON tells us that the
>natural gender is actually male!

Response: NOt if she is being compared.
>
I am in a rush right now and not at home i will try to respond to the rest later.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
btony

Thu May-27-04 09:48 AM

  
172. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 165


          

>>Reply4: I put the applicable entry. I don't mean to say
>>Christ is being represented by Wisdom, I mean to say EXACTLY
>>what I said.
>
>Response: Now you switched who is representing who now in
>Proverbs 8. Looks to me that wisdom is being personified
>not Christ.
>
>Christ is the personifier of Wisdom,
>
>Response: How do you gather that from proverbs 8? Christ is
>not even mentioned in the passage.

Reply5: The same way the early church writers and protestant commentators did probably! The parallels between Christ and wisdom, the fact that he is identified as Wisdom in the NT.

>
> when when
>>Wisdom is personified in Proverbs at, as the personifier of
>>it, it is Christ.
>
>Response: So how can wisdom be the representer of CHrist and
>Christ be the personifier of wisdom all at the same time?
>And how do you gather that from proverbs 8?

Reply5: Christ is the one that personifies Wisdom. So when wisdom is personified, Christ is the one doing it, as he did in the parallel accounts I showed you.

>
> As for understanding, as I pointed out,
>>Prov 8:14 identifies this to be the same as who Wisdom is.
>>For knowledge, please show me where knowledge is
>>personified. If it is not personified, how is there a
>>person who is the personifier? There can't be!
>
>Response: They are all used by God in the same context of
>creation it would be strang that one is a person and the
>others are not.

Reply5: Wisdom is not a person in itself, but the attribute is personified by a person. I am not aware of knowledge being personified anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to such a place.

>
>>Reply4: It is not supposed to be a "problem" but it
>>demonstrates that the grammatical gender can be feminine
>>(ala Prov 8) but the natural gender is masculine (as the use
>>of AMON in prov 8:30 demonstrates).
>
>Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.

Reply5: Wisdom is called such in verse 30, with the masculine AMON. Are you disputing this???

>
>>Reply4: And in Prov 8 Wisdom is called AMON, not AMONAH.
>
>Response: Actually she is like an architech.

Reply5: Again, do you deny that Solomon used the masculine instead of the feminine?

>>
>>>>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).
>>>
>>>Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math
>>>here.

Reply5: As I highlighted in the other thread, it does not mean originator.

>>Reply4: I've actually studied every use of ARCH in both the
>>LXX and GNT, and when used as at Rev 3:14, it is almost
>>unquestionably used with a first in time meaning.
>
>Response: But you are ignoring the fact that it also means
>ruler as in eph 5.

Reply5: ARCH does not even appear in Eph 5. Perhaps you mean the PLURAL in verse 6. The plural is used for ruler, but this is uncommon for the singular. Rather, in cases of the singular, ARCWN is used.

>>>Reply4: And Prov 8:30's use of AMON tells us that the
>>natural gender is actually male!
>
>Response: NOt if she is being compared.

Reply5: I see no comparison taking place.

>>
>I am in a rush right now and not at home i will try to
>respond to the rest later.


Very well,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu May-27-04 12:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
178. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 172


          

>
>Reply5: The same way the early church writers and
>protestant commentators did probably! The parallels between
>Christ and wisdom, the fact that he is identified as Wisdom
>in the NT.

Response: Well alot of the church fathers were into allegorical interpretain so it is obvious how they got it, but unless that your method that is not a good answer. Especially since you cannot personify persons. There are parallels and they are differences as well, and the context inwhich is called wisdom in the NT. i.e. wisdom unto salvation is different than Solomon's use of wisdom to living a Godly life.

>Reply5: Christ is the one that personifies Wisdom. So when
>wisdom is personified, Christ is the one doing it, as he did
>in the parallel accounts I showed you.

Response: Where on earth to do you see Christ personifying wisdom in Proverbs 8? you are forcing a interpretion on the text. No where in that passage do we see any one person personifying wisdom other than Solomon as he does with his poetry the entire book.
>
>
>Reply5: Wisdom is not a person in itself, but the attribute
>is personified by a person. I am not aware of knowledge
>being personified anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to
>such a place.

Response: Well it is only consistant that if one of the attributes used in that passage is a person or is being personified in the NT that the other two should be as well.
>>Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.
>
>Reply5: Wisdom is called such in verse 30, with the
>masculine AMON. Are you disputing this???

Response: No I am saying that wisdom is a personal name and architech is a title describing what type of work wisdom is doing. So wisdom she is being described as an architech.
>Reply5: As I highlighted in the other thread, it does not
>mean originator.

Response: that was a good point, there, although I still think ruler is better.
>>Reply5: ARCH does not even appear in Eph 5. Perhaps you
>mean the PLURAL in verse 6. The plural is used for ruler,
>but this is uncommon for the singular. Rather, in cases of
>the singular, ARCWN is used.

Response: Sorry bout that I did not have a bible at work, but teh plural does not change the meaning of the word, futhermore as I have said arch is the root that naturally means ruler. Monarch, arch angel etc.

>Reply5: I see no comparison taking place.

Respnse: Architech is not her name it is describing what she does.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
btony

Thu May-27-04 02:39 PM

  
199. "RE: people don't personify attributes"
In response to Reply # 178


          

>>
>>Reply5: The same way the early church writers and
>>protestant commentators did probably! The parallels between
>>Christ and wisdom, the fact that he is identified as Wisdom
>>in the NT.
>
>Response: Well alot of the church fathers were into
>allegorical interpretain so it is obvious how they got it,
>but unless that your method that is not a good answer.
>Especially since you cannot personify persons. There are
>parallels and they are differences as well, and the context
>inwhich is called wisdom in the NT. i.e. wisdom unto
>salvation is different than Solomon's use of wisdom to
>living a Godly life.

Reply6: First of all, NOBODY IS PERSONIFYING A PERSON! Come on sheesh. Stop building straw man arguments! You keep claiming a contextual different, but you've thus far failed to demonstrate such. Try DEMONSTRATING THE DIFFERENCE. Christ is called the Wisdom of God. Not the Wisdom regarding salvation from God. Your position completely fails.


>
>>Reply5: Christ is the one that personifies Wisdom. So when
>>wisdom is personified, Christ is the one doing it, as he did
>>in the parallel accounts I showed you.
>
>Response: Where on earth to do you see Christ personifying
>wisdom in Proverbs 8? you are forcing a interpretion on the
>text. No where in that passage do we see any one person
>personifying wisdom other than Solomon as he does with his
>poetry the entire book.
>>

Reply6: I am actually following Christ, who referenced himself as Wisdom speaking (we noted the parallel passages) and Paul who called Christ God's Wisdom. Understanding this, as the ANF did, we make the connection... also the attribute of Wisdom is never created, Prov 8:22 has personified Wisdom created first, ala Rev 3:14.


>>
>>Reply5: Wisdom is not a person in itself, but the attribute
>>is personified by a person. I am not aware of knowledge
>>being personified anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to
>>such a place.
>
>Response: Well it is only consistant that if one of the
>attributes used in that passage is a person or is being
>personified in the NT that the other two should be as well.
>>>Response: as an architech, she is not an architech.

Reply6: The attribute is personified BEFORE we claim a person is the personifier. Unless there is a personfication, there can be no personifier. It helps a lot to use basic logic instead of arguing just to argue.

>>
>>Reply5: Wisdom is called such in verse 30, with the
>>masculine AMON. Are you disputing this???
>
>Response: No I am saying that wisdom is a personal name and
>architech is a title describing what type of work wisdom is
>doing. So wisdom she is being described as an architech.

Reply6: And Wisdom is done so using the MASCULINE, not the FEMININE. Why did Solomon use AMON instead of AMONAH, if the NATURAL gender is not masculine?


>>Reply5: As I highlighted in the other thread, it does not
>>mean originator.
>
>Response: that was a good point, there, although I still
>think ruler is better.

Reply6: Again, empty opinion. I've provided evidence for my position, but theologically, you MUST not accept it, even though it stands totally in the face of your position.

>>>Reply5: ARCH does not even appear in Eph 5. Perhaps you
>>mean the PLURAL in verse 6. The plural is used for ruler,
>>but this is uncommon for the singular. Rather, in cases of
>>the singular, ARCWN is used.
>
>Response: Sorry bout that I did not have a bible at work,
>but teh plural does not change the meaning of the word,
>futhermore as I have said arch is the root that naturally
>means ruler. Monarch, arch angel etc.

Reply: Actually, it does not. It means first, in time or priority. To be a ruler, the term typically used is ARCWN. Here are some examples:

Genesis 34:2 And Sychem the son of Emmor the Evite, the ruler of the land (O ARCWN THS GHS), saw her, and took her and lay with her, and humbled her.

Genesis 45:8 Now then ye did not send me hither, but God; and he hath made me as a father of Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and ruler of all the land of Egypt (ARCONTA PASHS GHS ALGUPTOU).

Judges 9:30 And Zebul the ruler of the city (ARCWN THS POLEWS) heard the words of Gaal the son of Jobel, and he was very angry.

Micah 5:2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel (ARCONTA EN TW ISRAHL); and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.

Others can be found at the following places: Mathew 9:18, 23. 34; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 8:41; 11:15; 12:58; 18:18; John 3:1; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Acts 7:27, 35; 23:5; Eph 2:2. There are many more, but that is sufficient. ARCH is used most often for first in time references, especially when used with a genitive of a person:

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.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

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.

As with Genesis 49:3, ARCH here is synonymous with PRWTOTOKOS.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

This verse is of personified Wisdom, Jesus (1 Cor. 1:24). He is identified as the beginning of God's ways, a clear use of ARCH as beginning, but also an obvious parallel to Revelation 3:14 (for more on this, see C. F. Burney, "Christ as the APCH of Creation," Journal of Theological Studies 27).

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.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

A clear use of ARCH denoting a beginning in time. These are the first cities that were within his kingdom.

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.

ARCH is here used to identify what month would be considered the first month.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 2 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

These identify an event that occurs at the same time as a harvest begins.

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.

Proverbs The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
(ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

These verses explain that we first have wisdom when we begin to fear the Lord.

Psalm 137:6 May my tongue cleave to my throat, if I do not remember thee; if I do not prefer Jerusalem as the chief of my joy (EN ARCH THS EUFROSUNHS MOU).

Not chief as in ruler or authority, but as in the primary one. Jerusalem is what brings Jehovah the most joy, it is first in rank of his joys.

Job 40:19 This is the first of the formation of the Lord (TOUT ESTIN ARCH PLASMATOS KURIOU); made to be played with by his angels.

Wisdom 12:16 For your power is the beginning of righteousness (H GAR ISCUS DIKAIOSUNHS ARCH)...
Jeremiah 49:35 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.

Chief here is clearly not denoting the ruler, but the primary aspect of their might, the foremost aspect of their strength. Albert Barnes expands on this, saying: "The bow was the national weapon of Elam, and therefore the “chief of their might,” that on which their strength in war depended."

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

Mark 13:8 "For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (ARCH WDINWN TOUTA).

Again we find that these things are the ARCH of the birth pangs, the beginning or first of them.



>
>>Reply5: I see no comparison taking place.
>
>Respnse: Architech is not her name it is describing what she
>does.

Reply6: Yes, it does, but it is the masculine AMON instead of the feminine AMONAH. Why is this if Wisdom's NATURAL gender is not masculine?

Regards.
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 01:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
202. "you are ignoring the context of 1 Cor"
In response to Reply # 199


          

>Reply6: First of all, NOBODY IS PERSONIFYING A PERSON!
>Come on sheesh.

Response: Good so we agree that wisdom is nor personifying Christ a person, good, took a while to convince you.

Stop building straw man arguments! You
>keep claiming a contextual different, but you've thus far
>failed to demonstrate such. Try DEMONSTRATING THE
>DIFFERENCE. Christ is called the Wisdom of God. Not the
>Wisdom regarding salvation from God. Your position
>completely fails.

Response: You ignore the context of 1 Cor 1:26-31, lets look shall we. THe difference is that Christ is the wisdom unto salvation while Proverbs uses wisdom to living a godly life.

v26 "for considering your calling brethern..."

So we see here that Paul is discussing their calling meaning their salvation. No illusion to Proverbs at all.

vs 27 But God has chosen the foolish things in the world to shame the wise...

Here again Paul still discussing salvation, not proverbs 8.

vs 28. And these things the world has despised....

vs29. so that no man can boast before God...

Boast of what? Their salvation,therefore v 30 Christ is the wisdom of GOd in righteouness, santification etc.

THere is the difference TOny simply context.
>>Reply6: I am actually following Christ, who referenced
>himself as Wisdom speaking (we noted the parallel passages)
>and Paul who called Christ God's Wisdom.

Response: I ask about Proverbs 8 and you jump to the NT, tss, tss. Christ did not even mention proverbs 8, and I have illustrated already what Paul meant when calling Christ wisdom vs what SOlomon was doing, and the parallel passages were between luke and matthew not proverbs. Now show me from the text of proverbs that Christ is personifying it.

Understanding
>this, as the ANF did, we make the connection... also the
>attribute of Wisdom is never created, Prov 8:22 has
>personified Wisdom created first, ala Rev 3:14.

Response:ANF also believe in baptism unto salvation and used allegorical method. If the attribute wisdom is Christ is never created then that would make him God. ANd Rev 3:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Proverbs 8, besides being forced into it by you.
>
>Reply6: The attribute is personified BEFORE we claim a
>person is the personifier. Unless there is a
>personfication, there can be no personifier. It helps a lot
>to use basic logic instead of arguing just to argue.

Response: And it also helps to be consistant, if God by his wisdom did something and wisdom is a person, then understanding and knowledge should be persons as well.
>>Reply6: And Wisdom is done so using the MASCULINE, not the
>FEMININE. Why did Solomon use AMON instead of AMONAH, if
>the NATURAL gender is not masculine?

Response: Because titles don't matter when applying it to a type of work or job she is doing. SHe is as an architect, the whether the title of the job is feminine or masculine does not matter.
>
>Reply6: Again, empty opinion. I've provided evidence for
>my position, but theologically, you MUST not accept it, even
>though it stands totally in the face of your position.

Response:Well I have lexical support as well, so it is not an empty opinion.

arche p138 of BADG says " an authority figure who iniates activity or process, ruler, authority.
>Reply: Actually, it does not. It means first, in time or
>priority. To be a ruler, the term typically used is ARCWN.
>Here are some examples:

Response: Here is some other examples.

LUke 12:11 the synagouges and the rulers and the authorities...

kai tas arkas tas ezousias...

Titus 3:1, Romans 8:38,1 Cor 15:24,Eph 1:21,3:10;6:12, Col 1:16;2:10,15. So I have plenty of support.
>
>>Reply6: Yes, it does, but it is the masculine AMON instead
>of the feminine AMONAH. Why is this if Wisdom's NATURAL
>gender is not masculine?

Response: Becuase in relation to job titles or descriptoins of vocation it does not matter, especially since Wisdom is called a she throughout all 9 chapters,unless you want to argue for a sex change or soemthing.
>
>Regards.
>Tony

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:46 AM

  
212. "More strawman arguments.. and repetition"
In response to Reply # 202


          

>>Reply6: First of all, NOBODY IS PERSONIFYING A PERSON!
>>Come on sheesh.
>
>Response: Good so we agree that wisdom is nor personifying
>Christ a person, good, took a while to convince you.

Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I did to somehow claim victory. Try again.

>
> Stop building straw man arguments! You
>>keep claiming a contextual different, but you've thus far
>>failed to demonstrate such. Try DEMONSTRATING THE
>>DIFFERENCE. Christ is called the Wisdom of God. Not the
>>Wisdom regarding salvation from God. Your position
>>completely fails.
>
>Response: You ignore the context of 1 Cor 1:26-31, lets look
>shall we. THe difference is that Christ is the wisdom unto
>salvation while Proverbs uses wisdom to living a godly life.
>
>v26 "for considering your calling brethern..."
>
>So we see here that Paul is discussing their calling meaning
>their salvation. No illusion to Proverbs at all.
>
>vs 27 But God has chosen the foolish things in the world to
>shame the wise...
>
>Here again Paul still discussing salvation, not proverbs 8.
>
>vs 28. And these things the world has despised....
>
>vs29. so that no man can boast before God...
>
>Boast of what? Their salvation,therefore v 30 Christ is the
>wisdom of GOd in righteouness, santification etc.
>
>THere is the difference TOny simply context.

Reply7: Another strawman. I'm not even talking about those verse, I'm talking about verse 24!


>>>Reply6: I am actually following Christ, who referenced
>>himself as Wisdom speaking (we noted the parallel passages)
>>and Paul who called Christ God's Wisdom.
>
>Response: I ask about Proverbs 8 and you jump to the NT,
>tss, tss. Christ did not even mention proverbs 8, and I
>have illustrated already what Paul meant when calling Christ
>wisdom vs what SOlomon was doing, and the parallel passages
>were between luke and matthew not proverbs. Now show me
>from the text of proverbs that Christ is personifying it.

Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom. Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it is personified.


>
> Understanding
>>this, as the ANF did, we make the connection... also the
>>attribute of Wisdom is never created, Prov 8:22 has
>>personified Wisdom created first, ala Rev 3:14.
>
>Response:ANF also believe in baptism unto salvation and used
>allegorical method. If the attribute wisdom is Christ is
>never created then that would make him God. ANd Rev 3:14
>has absolutely nothing to do with Proverbs 8, besides being
>forced into it by you.

Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also believed that...." Lets not whine please. Wisdom is plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the connection.


>>
>>Reply6: The attribute is personified BEFORE we claim a
>>person is the personifier. Unless there is a
>>personfication, there can be no personifier. It helps a lot
>>to use basic logic instead of arguing just to argue.
>
>Response: And it also helps to be consistant, if God by his
>wisdom did something and wisdom is a person, then
>understanding and knowledge should be persons as well.

Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, according to Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of Understanding.


>>>Reply6: And Wisdom is done so using the MASCULINE, not the
>>FEMININE. Why did Solomon use AMON instead of AMONAH, if
>>the NATURAL gender is not masculine?
>
>Response: Because titles don't matter when applying it to a
>type of work or job she is doing. SHe is as an architect,
>the whether the title of the job is feminine or masculine
>does not matter.

Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you still aren't dealing with the issues.


>>
>>Reply6: Again, empty opinion. I've provided evidence for
>>my position, but theologically, you MUST not accept it, even
>>though it stands totally in the face of your position.
>
>Response:Well I have lexical support as well, so it is not
>an empty opinion.
>
>arche p138 of BADG says " an authority figure who iniates
>activity or process, ruler, authority.

Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv 3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing the translations we could come up with if we went around and just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.

Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers to positions of authority, and when that happens, it typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to specific authority, but authorities in general. I have demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid, unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter for it.

>>Reply: Actually, it does not. It means first, in time or
>>priority. To be a ruler, the term typically used is ARCWN.
>>Here are some examples:
>
>Response: Here is some other examples.
>
>LUke 12:11 the synagouges and the rulers and the
>authorities...
>
>kai tas arkas tas ezousias...
>
>Titus 3:1, Romans 8:38,1 Cor 15:24,Eph 1:21,3:10;6:12, Col
>1:16;2:10,15. So I have plenty of support.

Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14. Again, there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev 3:14 here.. You are using a lexical entry that disagrees with your position, because it flat out states that "first-created" is the "linguistically probable" translation. Even if all of your entries were valid comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very small when compared to mine.


>>
>>>Reply6: Yes, it does, but it is the masculine AMON instead
>>of the feminine AMONAH. Why is this if Wisdom's NATURAL
>>gender is not masculine?
>
>Response: Becuase in relation to job titles or descriptoins
>of vocation it does not matter, especially since Wisdom is
>called a she throughout all 9 chapters,unless you want to
>argue for a sex change or soemthing.

Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.


>>
>>Regards.
>>Tony


Keep trying,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 04:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
222. "way to duck exegesis"
In response to Reply # 212


          

>Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to
>begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I
>did to somehow claim victory. Try again.

Response: Then if Wisdom is not personifying Christ then it has nothign to do with Christ. Good glad we agree again. See with a little work I knew I could convince you.
>Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this
>and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom.
>Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he
>is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so
>the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it
>is personified.

Response: WAY TO DUCK EXEGESIS!! Man, you might want to try boxing or something. Every heard of genre?? Wisdom in poetry is different than wisdom within an epistle.

For example if I write a love letter to my wife and tell her I love here, would be different than writting a business letter where I tell someone I would love to meet them. You have no interestin in exegesis.
>
>>Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also
>believed that...." Lets not whine please.

Response: How am I running when you brought them up, just because the ANF believed something does not mean that one is obligated to agree with them.

Wisdom is
>plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for
>connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in
>his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the
>connection.

Response: Glad you said that, because you listed all of the choices earlier for arche meaning first created or something, and noted below in this post that you had the majority of definitoins, true. However, the word qanah (the Hebrew not Greek) is more likely possesed or aquired as you know, very rarely is it used as create.

84 times it occurs in the Old Testament, 70 times as ktaomai and only 3 as ktizo.

So the majority of appearances of a word does not negate that it can mean something besides it normal appearance, therefore even though you have more appearances of arche more than I do , does not mean anything, unless you want to agree with me that qanah should be translated as possessed as opposed to created.

>
>Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've
>said it before, and I'll say it again, according to
>Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of
>Understanding.

Response: So where is wisdom dwelling with prudence at? And where did he find knowlegde and descretion, ya know they were hiding out somewhere. By the way if Jesus wisdom and understading who is this knowledge charecter?

Futhremore you never did tell me which street corner that was Jesus was shouting (prov 1:20) just curious to its location.
>
>Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did
>Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you
>still aren't dealing with the issues.


Response: Because he *personifying* wisdom that is why. He is applying human charecteristics to an abstraction. It is beyond grammer.
>Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv
>3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want
>to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing
>the translations we could come up with if we went around and
>just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.


Response: Well if I used yours in BDAG I could keep oringinator, since it says "the first cause..."

Cool I can keep originator, thanks.
>
>Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for
>the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers
>to positions of authority, and when that happens, it
>typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to
>specific authority, but authorities in general. I have
>demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid,
>unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter
>for it.

Response: The plural form is no different than the singular, all it means is that there is more than one. Again arche means ruler, how else do we get monarch, archangel etc. it had to come from somewhere. I think you are winging it now.
>

>
>Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are
>not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14.

Response: Homemade greek grammer, plural makes no difference.

Again,
>there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev
>3:14 here..

Resp0onse: Then originator fits, if that is the case.

You are using a lexical entry that disagrees
>with your position, because it flat out states that
>"first-created" is the "linguistically probable"
>translation. Even if all of your entries were valid
>comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very
>small when compared to mine.

REsponse: And so is originator according to BDAG, and size means nothing unless you want to agree that qanah means acquired or possessed in Prov 8.
>
>>Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural
>gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the
>masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts
>your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for
>it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.


Response: Wisdom as a female counts for genre, since he is personifying it. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 04:30 AM

  
225. "RE: way to duck exegesis"
In response to Reply # 222


          

>>Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to
>>begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I
>>did to somehow claim victory. Try again.
>
>Response: Then if Wisdom is not personifying Christ then it
>has nothign to do with Christ. Good glad we agree again.
>See with a little work I knew I could convince you.
>>Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this
>>and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom.
>>Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he
>>is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so
>>the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it
>>is personified.
>
>Response: WAY TO DUCK EXEGESIS!! Man, you might want to try
>boxing or something. Every heard of genre?? Wisdom in
>poetry is different than wisdom within an epistle.


Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I accept it. You obviously don't.


>
>For example if I write a love letter to my wife and tell her
>I love here, would be different than writting a business
>letter where I tell someone I would love to meet them. You
>have no interestin in exegesis.
>>
>>>Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also
>>believed that...." Lets not whine please.
>
>Response: How am I running when you brought them up, just
>because the ANF believed something does not mean that one is
>obligated to agree with them.

Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this, no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points. That really is the significant part here too. While they disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I can't think of a single time it was!

>
> Wisdom is
>>plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for
>>connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in
>>his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the
>>connection.
>
>Response: Glad you said that, because you listed all of the
>choices earlier for arche meaning first created or
>something, and noted below in this post that you had the
>majority of definitoins, true. However, the word qanah (the
>Hebrew not Greek) is more likely possesed or aquired as you
>know, very rarely is it used as create.

Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.

>
>84 times it occurs in the Old Testament, 70 times as ktaomai
>and only 3 as ktizo.
>
>So the majority of appearances of a word does not negate
>that it can mean something besides it normal appearance,
>therefore even though you have more appearances of arche
>more than I do , does not mean anything, unless you want to
>agree with me that qanah should be translated as possessed
>as opposed to created.

Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the source of all things. Word usage is not simply the appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the type of construction it is used in).


>
>>
>>Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've
>>said it before, and I'll say it again, according to
>>Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of
>>Understanding.
>
>Response: So where is wisdom dwelling with prudence at? And
>where did he find knowlegde and descretion, ya know they
>were hiding out somewhere. By the way if Jesus wisdom and
>understading who is this knowledge charecter?

Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same for knowledge.

>
>Futhremore you never did tell me which street corner that
>was Jesus was shouting (prov 1:20) just curious to its
>location.

Reply8: John Gill writes the following: "she uttereth her voice in the streets: of the city of Jerusalem, and other places; nor is this contrary to Mat_12:19; which is to be understood of crying in a bawling and litigious way, of lifting up the voice in self-commendation, neither of which Christ did; and yet might cry and utter his voice in the streets, that is, publicly preach his Gospel there, as he did; and he also sent his servants into the streets and lanes of the city to call in sinners by the ministry of the word, Luk_14:21; which perhaps may be meant of places in the Gentile world; nor is this sense to be excluded here; it may be figuratively understood of the public ministration of the word and ordinances in the church called the streets and broad ways of it, Son_3:2."

>>
>>Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did
>>Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you
>>still aren't dealing with the issues.
>
>
>Response: Because he *personifying* wisdom that is why. He
>is applying human charecteristics to an abstraction. It is
>beyond grammer.

Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of AMONAH.

>>Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv
>>3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want
>>to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing
>>the translations we could come up with if we went around and
>>just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.
>
>
>Response: Well if I used yours in BDAG I could keep
>oringinator, since it says "the first cause..."
>
>Cool I can keep originator, thanks.

Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in Col 1:16 and john 1:3.


>>
>>Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for
>>the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers
>>to positions of authority, and when that happens, it
>>typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to
>>specific authority, but authorities in general. I have
>>demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid,
>>unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter
>>for it.
>
>Response: The plural form is no different than the singular,
>all it means is that there is more than one. Again arche
>means ruler, how else do we get monarch, archangel etc. it
>had to come from somewhere. I think you are winging it now.

Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same thing.


>>
>
>>
>>Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are
>>not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14.
>
>Response: Homemade greek grammer, plural makes no
>difference.

Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural is often used for authority, but the singular is almost never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so much.

>
> Again,
>>there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev
>>3:14 here..
>
>Resp0onse: Then originator fits, if that is the case.

Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John 1:3. Can't have it both ways.

>
> You are using a lexical entry that disagrees
>>with your position, because it flat out states that
>>"first-created" is the "linguistically probable"
>>translation. Even if all of your entries were valid
>>comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very
>>small when compared to mine.
>
>REsponse: And so is originator according to BDAG, and size
>means nothing unless you want to agree that qanah means
>acquired or possessed in Prov 8.

Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH? I stand by what I have said.

>>
>>>Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural
>>gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the
>>masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts
>>your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for
>>it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.
>
>
>Response: Wisdom as a female counts for genre, since he is
>personifying it. Talk about not seeing the forest for the
>trees.
>>

Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 02:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
234. "theological problems with wisdom"
In response to Reply # 225


          

>Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I
>accept it. You obviously don't.

Response: Well here is the problem I think you run into with that.

1. You said that wisdom is an attribute of God.

2. You said that wisdom is a creation.

3. If wisdom is a creation, then there was a time when God had no wisdom.

4. Therefore, you have a not so bright God, and a God who had to create an attribute.
>
>Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance
>in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this,
>no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points.
>That really is the significant part here too. While they
>disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was
>Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I
>can't think of a single time it was!

Response: Well, as you know I don't regard the church fathers an infallible, secondly, there are alot of issues where me and the church fathers disagree. Why? Because there method of interpretatoin was different than my own, not saying that all of them were off, but they got a little off on a lot of topics.
>Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does
>not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the
>Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate
>with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in
>Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.

Response: Wisdom cannot have a birth, an attribute of an infinite God cannot be created. So it is not fitting.
>Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God
>can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the
>source of all things. Word usage is not simply the
>appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the
>type of construction it is used in).

Response: God cannot create an attribute otherwise God is not God. Each aspect of his charecter must be eternal.
>
>Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same
>for knowledge.

Response: Wisdom is said to dwell with prudence,how do you dwell with a non person?
>Reply8: John Gill writes the following:

Respnse: Well John GIll is definitely stretching it, because Matt's passage is a qoute from Isaiah about God's servant, it has nothing to do with Proverbs, it is not even qouted in Matt, futhremore, it said that Christ would not be yelling , the excate opposiste of proverbs. And Luke 14:21 is a parable not a fufillemnt of proverbs 8, again another stretch.

>Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL
>gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been
>feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is
>NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of
>AMONAH.


Response: First of all there is no article infront of Amon so it is not the architech, it is indefinite, so she is besides God as *a* architech wisdom is not an architech in itself. So the title is masculine but has nothing to do with wisdom's gender.
>
>
>Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically
>probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as
>we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of
>TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in
>Col 1:16 and john 1:3.

Response: Well Romans 11:36 expresses agency through the Father as well. And the only reasno why I said that was because you wanted lexical data, that is all, I still think ruler is the best answer.
>Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably
>different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I
>have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN
>normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that
>John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same
>thing.

Response: Uh yes, the only reason why the plural is used is because the writer is always discussing more than one ruler, archon is just a cognate of arch, just because it is a participle does not change it's meaning.
>
>Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural
>is often used for authority, but the singular is almost
>never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have
>been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so
>much.

Response; The only difference in the biblical writers minds was the audiecne they were talking to or about, they just happened to be plural. Again archon is just a cognate.
>Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John
>1:3. Can't have it both ways.

Response: Not really Roman 11:36 places agency through the Father, and ruler is consistant with Col 1:17-18, but I think I would rather go with ruler.
>>Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH?
> I stand by what I have said.

Response: Well consider my arugement above.
>
>Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he
>CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN
>is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.

Response: You are ignoring genre, you do realize that Solomon is writting poetry don't you? Futhremore I have explained why wisdom cannot be created.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:58 PM

  
239. "RE: theological problems with wisdom"
In response to Reply # 234


          

>>Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I
>>accept it. You obviously don't.
>
>Response: Well here is the problem I think you run into with
>that.
>
>1. You said that wisdom is an attribute of God.
>
>2. You said that wisdom is a creation.
>
>3. If wisdom is a creation, then there was a time when God
>had no wisdom.
>
>4. Therefore, you have a not so bright God, and a God who
>had to create an attribute.

Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the personifier.


>>
>>Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance
>>in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this,
>>no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points.
>>That really is the significant part here too. While they
>>disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was
>>Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I
>>can't think of a single time it was!
>
>Response: Well, as you know I don't regard the church
>fathers an infallible, secondly, there are alot of issues
>where me and the church fathers disagree. Why? Because
>there method of interpretatoin was different than my own,
>not saying that all of them were off, but they got a little
>off on a lot of topics.

Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they did not disgree on this.


>>Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does
>>not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the
>>Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate
>>with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in
>>Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.
>
>Response: Wisdom cannot have a birth, an attribute of an
>infinite God cannot be created. So it is not fitting.

Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.

>>Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God
>>can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the
>>source of all things. Word usage is not simply the
>>appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the
>>type of construction it is used in).
>
>Response: God cannot create an attribute otherwise God is
>not God. Each aspect of his charecter must be eternal.
>>

Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the personifier of it is created.

>>Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same
>>for knowledge.
>
>Response: Wisdom is said to dwell with prudence,how do you
>dwell with a non person?

Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.

>>Reply8: John Gill writes the following:
>
>Respnse: Well John GIll is definitely stretching it, because
>Matt's passage is a qoute from Isaiah about God's servant,
>it has nothing to do with Proverbs, it is not even qouted in
>Matt, futhremore, it said that Christ would not be yelling ,
>the excate opposiste of proverbs. And Luke 14:21 is a
>parable not a fufillemnt of proverbs 8, again another
>stretch.

Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active (i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.

>
>>Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL
>>gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been
>>feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is
>>NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of
>>AMONAH.
>
>
>Response: First of all there is no article infront of Amon
>so it is not the architech, it is indefinite, so she is
>besides God as *a* architech wisdom is not an architech in
>itself. So the title is masculine but has nothing to do
>with wisdom's gender.

Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote again though.

"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine and require additional data to narrow the gender to one. Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.

"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your correspondent, is not happy with the answer."


>>
>>
>>Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically
>>probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as
>>we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of
>>TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in
>>Col 1:16 and john 1:3.
>
>Response: Well Romans 11:36 expresses agency through the
>Father as well. And the only reasno why I said that was
>because you wanted lexical data, that is all, I still think
>ruler is the best answer.

Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.


>>Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably
>>different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I
>>have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN
>>normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that
>>John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same
>>thing.
>
>Response: Uh yes, the only reason why the plural is used is
>because the writer is always discussing more than one ruler,
>archon is just a cognate of arch, just because it is a
>participle does not change it's meaning.

Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.

>>
>>Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural
>>is often used for authority, but the singular is almost
>>never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have
>>been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so
>>much.
>
>Response; The only difference in the biblical writers minds
>was the audiecne they were talking to or about, they just
>happened to be plural. Again archon is just a cognate.

Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a person with a genitive.

>>Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John
>>1:3. Can't have it both ways.
>
>Response: Not really Roman 11:36 places agency through the
>Father, and ruler is consistant with Col 1:17-18, but I
>think I would rather go with ruler.

Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.

>>>Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH?
>> I stand by what I have said.
>
>Response: Well consider my arugement above.
>>
>>Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he
>>CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN
>>is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.
>
>Response: You are ignoring genre, you do realize that
>Solomon is writting poetry don't you? Futhremore I have
>explained why wisdom cannot be created.

Reply9. The Targum says created, the LXX says created, the Hebrew uses birth imagry. Nobody claims the attribute itself is, but the personifier is.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 03:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
246. "so Proverbs does not support Christ creation"
In response to Reply # 239


          

>Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the
>personifier.

Response: Seems to me that Christ sometimes is wisdom (when it is convenient) and sometimes is not wisdom. So this means that proverbs 8 does not support the creatoin of Christ right?

>Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they
>did not disgree on this.

Response: Origin struggled with wisdom being created however, wondering like I am if there was a time God had no wisdom. But he was consistant in keeping wisdom as Christ unlike you are doing.

>
>Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many
>translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.

Respnse: So it birht is imagry then wisdom was not born so to speak therefore this verse cannot support Chirst having a beginning right?
>>>
>>>
>
>Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the
>personifier of it is created.

Response: So since the attribute is the topic of PRoverbs 8, and is nto created therfore you can't use this verse to support Christ beign created correct?

?
>
>Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.

Response: You getting wierd on me here.

>>Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think
>it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only
>time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active
>(i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.

Response: So sometimes wisdom is Chirst and other times it is not? Ohhh kkkk.
>
>Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted
>in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote
>again though.
>
>"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine
>cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of
>the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender
>of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine
>role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it
>identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages
>have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine
>and require additional data to narrow the gender to one.
>Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.
>
>"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a
>feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a
>masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a
>masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your
>correspondent, is not happy with the answer."

Respnse: 1. I think the prof is ignoring genre, but again as I said I will give him the respect and double check wiht my prof on thursday.
>
>Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference
>BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used
>in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.

Response: That is interesting in BDAG a causal dia, never heard of it before. I don't think the construction makes a difference, it is just a genitive, unless you are arguing for a specific type of gentive, it would make no difference, now if yuo could illustrate why it can't then that would be a diffferent story.

>>Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of
>ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural
>of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit
>the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction
>is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.

Response: They are cognates, they mean the same thign.

>>Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE
>LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided
>the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used
>in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a
>person with a genitive.

Response: Why would I have to provide statistical data, unless there was reason too. In othere words what is grammtically special about that genitive that makes it impossible for arche to fit there?

>Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.

Response: That is a new on me, never heard of an active dia.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 03:42 PM

  
248. "Tick, tock, tick, tock..."
In response to Reply # 246


          

>>Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the
>>personifier.
>
>Response: Seems to me that Christ sometimes is wisdom (when
>it is convenient) and sometimes is not wisdom. So this
>means that proverbs 8 does not support the creatoin of
>Christ right?

Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.

>
>>Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they
>>did not disgree on this.
>
>Response: Origin struggled with wisdom being created
>however, wondering like I am if there was a time God had no
>wisdom. But he was consistant in keeping wisdom as Christ
>unlike you are doing.

Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.


>
>>
>>Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many
>>translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.
>
>Respnse: So it birht is imagry then wisdom was not born so
>to speak therefore this verse cannot support Chirst having a
>beginning right?

Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.

>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the
>>personifier of it is created.
>
>Response: So since the attribute is the topic of PRoverbs 8,
>and is nto created therfore you can't use this verse to
>support Christ beign created correct?

Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is Christ.

>
>?
>>
>>Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.
>
>Response: You getting wierd on me here.

Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God, no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?

>
>>>Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think
>>it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only
>>time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active
>>(i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.
>
>Response: So sometimes wisdom is Chirst and other times it
>is not? Ohhh kkkk.

Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier of an attribute. When we see the active personification, this is Christ.

>>
>>Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted
>>in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote
>>again though.
>>
>>"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine
>>cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of
>>the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender
>>of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine
>>role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it
>>identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages
>>have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine
>>and require additional data to narrow the gender to one.
>>Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.
>>
>>"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a
>>feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a
>>masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a
>>masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your
>>correspondent, is not happy with the answer."
>
>Respnse: 1. I think the prof is ignoring genre, but again
>as I said I will give him the respect and double check wiht
>my prof on thursday.

Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and grammar is 100% the issue.

>>
>>Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference
>>BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used
>>in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.
>
>Response: That is interesting in BDAG a causal dia, never
>heard of it before. I don't think the construction makes a
>difference, it is just a genitive, unless you are arguing
>for a specific type of gentive, it would make no difference,
>now if yuo could illustrate why it can't then that would be
>a diffferent story.

Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is associated with intermediate agency...

>
>>>Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of
>>ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural
>>of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit
>>the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction
>>is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.
>
>Response: They are cognates, they mean the same thign.

Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here lexicon, and look up ARCWN.

>
>>>Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE
>>LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided
>>the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used
>>in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a
>>person with a genitive.
>
>Response: Why would I have to provide statistical data,
>unless there was reason too. In othere words what is
>grammtically special about that genitive that makes it
>impossible for arche to fit there?
>

Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct answer.


>>Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.
>
>Response: That is a new on me, never heard of an active dia.
>>

Reply10:

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 04:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
252. "wisdom is greater than Christ."
In response to Reply # 248


          


Ok a couple more of these then I am going to bed.
?
>
>Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when
>Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.

Response: But Christ cannot accurately personify wisdom since he is created and wisdom is not. Chirst is basically fronting so to speak, because true wisdom is greater than he is.

A finite creature cannot personify an infinite attribute correctly.

>>
>Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it
>fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky
>meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he
>thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.

Response: That is because alot of the church Fathers read the NT back into the Old Testament, I don't do that, I read it as it is first, and unless there is reason to then I link them togther.

But neithre the context of Matt nor 1 Cor sends me back to proverbs 8. You'd almost have to force it,but yuo don't seem to mind.


>Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the
>LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being
>described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.

Response: But true wisdom is not created, therefore Christ is an insuffient representative off wisdom.
>Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is
>Christ.

Respsne: How can Christ personify the infinite?
>Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God,
>no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?

Respnose: Nope, Jesus does not even mention proverbs 8.
>Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier
>of an attribute. When we see the active personification,
>this is Christ.

Response: An infinite attribute cannot be personified by a finite creature.
>
>Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and
>grammar is 100% the issue.

Response: No, because Solomon could have chosen any of God's attributes to personify.
>>Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that
>missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is
>associated with intermediate agency...

Response: sure. I will think about it.
>Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly
>neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here
>lexicon, and look up ARCWN.

Response: I did. Same root
>Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a
>reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better
>understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is
>no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to
>the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct
>answer.

Response: That is a good point. I think a reader in hte first century could go either way, but more towards my view because of what arch means
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 04:34 PM

  
257. "not at all.."
In response to Reply # 252


          

>
>Ok a couple more of these then I am going to bed.
>?
>>
>>Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when
>>Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.
>
>Response: But Christ cannot accurately personify wisdom
>since he is created and wisdom is not. Chirst is basically
>fronting so to speak, because true wisdom is greater than he
is.

Reply11: That is nothing more than a temporal distinction. Not really an issue in personification. If this was an issue, nobody could ever personify any attribute.

>
>A finite creature cannot personify an infinite attribute
>correctly.

Reply11: Only temporally different. Not an issue in personification.

>
>>>
>>Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it
>>fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky
>>meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he
>>thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.
>
>Response: That is because alot of the church Fathers read
>the NT back into the Old Testament, I don't do that, I read
>it as it is first, and unless there is reason to then I link
>them togther.
>
>But neithre the context of Matt nor 1 Cor sends me back to
>proverbs 8. You'd almost have to force it,but yuo don't
>seem to mind.

Reply11: Well Wisdom is Wisdom. There are not different Wisdoms. Prov 8 is obvious the wisdom of God, for it is the worker in creation. Christ is called the wisdom of God. Christ is the intermediate agent in creation. I don't see a force here. I see parallels.

>
>
>>Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the
>>LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being
>>described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.
>
>Response: But true wisdom is not created, therefore Christ
>is an insuffient representative off wisdom.

Reply11: A temporal limitation on Christ does not stop him from personifying the attribute, especially in light of the wisdom (as an attribute) fully dwelling in him.

Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.


>>Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is
>>Christ.
>
>Respsne: How can Christ personify the infinite?

Reply11: A temporal distinction does not make something infinite. Again, I reference you to Col 2:3. If Christ can be filled with ALL the treasures of wisdom, obviously he can personify it.

>>Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God,
>>no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?
>
>Respnose: Nope, Jesus does not even mention proverbs 8.

Reply11: The parallels between Christ and Wisdom can't be missed.

>>Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier
>>of an attribute. When we see the active personification,
>>this is Christ.
>
>Response: An infinite attribute cannot be personified by a
>finite creature.

Reply11: In light of ALL wisdom being in Christ, he absolutely can.

>>
>>Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and
>>grammar is 100% the issue.
>
>Response: No, because Solomon could have chosen any of God's
>attributes to personify.

Reply11: Has nothing to do with it. Wisdom is grammatically feminine.

>>>Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that
>>missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is
>>associated with intermediate agency...
>
>Response: sure. I will think about it.
>>Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly
>>neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here
>>lexicon, and look up ARCWN.
>
>Response: I did. Same root

Reply11: Yes, root, but not the same form. What is the use of ARCH vs. ARCWN. There is a difference. Start searching the LXX and NT, you'll see it.

>>Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a
>>reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better
>>understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is
>>no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to
>>the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct
>>answer.
>
>Response: That is a good point. I think a reader in hte
>first century could go either way, but more towards my view
>because of what arch means
>>

Reply11: Well, if we look at the writings that the reader had available (the GNT and the LXX), we get a general picture of what would go on in their head. Ruler is not very probable when a statistical analysis is made.

Regards,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-29-04 12:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
267. "RE: not at all.."
In response to Reply # 257


          

I got to run to class (no not Greek) so I can only answer a couple of these but I will be back later on, I have to celebrate my birthday that past recently, so if my wife (that is not a bad thing) does not take up all my time I can be back as early as this afternoon or later on this evening. depends
>
>Reply11: That is nothing more than a temporal distinction.
>Not really an issue in personification. If this was an
>issue, nobody could ever personify any attribute.

Response: If Christ is just a personifier, then he really is not wisdom the attribute, he is just a role player. Who throws on a shakespere wig and plays the role.
>
>
>Reply11: Only temporally different. Not an issue in
>personification.

Response: Again Christ is not the attribute, therefore Christ is not wisdom,he is just an actor or a personifyer as you call it
>>
>Reply11: Well Wisdom is Wisdom. There are not different
>Wisdoms. Prov 8 is obvious the wisdom of God, for it is the
>worker in creation. Christ is called the wisdom of God.
>Christ is the intermediate agent in creation. I don't see a
>force here. I see parallels.

Response: Well if Wisdom is wisdom and Christ is wisdom then wisdom was created, if wisdom is wisdom and Christ only personifyes it, then Christ is not wisdom (the attribute) he is just a personifyer.
>
>>
>Reply11: A temporal limitation on Christ does not stop him
>from personifying the attribute, especially in light of the
>wisdom (as an attribute) fully dwelling in him.

Response: Then Christ is not really wisdom, he is not the attribute he is not really wisdom at all, he is just an actor. So it is inaccurate to call him wisdom.

>
>Reply11: A temporal distinction does not make something
>infinite. Again, I reference you to Col 2:3. If Christ can
>be filled with ALL the treasures of wisdom, obviously he can
>personify it.

Response: Ok, so according to you he is not wisdom? He is just a personification of it? And if that is so wisdom in Proverbs 8 really is not wisdom either.
>>Reply11: The parallels between Christ and Wisdom can't be
>missed.

Response: Unless there is different context involved. Context drives the meaning of the word, and 1 Cor is not where near Prov 8. They are'nt even the same genre.
>>Reply11: In light of ALL wisdom being in Christ, he
>absolutely can.

Response: Then he is not really wisdom.
>
>Reply11: Has nothing to do with it. Wisdom is
>grammatically feminine.

REsponse: Well let me double check that one later in the week, but Christ still is not wisdom according to you. So when Solomon said get wisdom, was he saying get God's attribute or get Christ?
>>Reply11: Yes, root, but not the same form. What is the use
>of ARCH vs. ARCWN. There is a difference. Start searching
>the LXX and NT, you'll see it.

Response: Wallace on page 114 has Rev 3:14 (see the cf part) as a subjective genitive, if this is so then it really means that Christ is not created at all, but rather the beginner. And that fits with Col 1:16 and John 1:3 because even though he is an intermediater he is still the one starting the creation. And that fits well within the context.

arxe tes ktiseos tou theou

Beginning of the creation of God but tou theou is the subject

God's creation began, but in reference to a person it is

God's creation beginner
>
>Reply11: Well, if we look at the writings that the reader
>had available (the GNT and the LXX), we get a general
>picture of what would go on in their head. Ruler is not
>very probable when a statistical analysis is made.

Response: as a subjective gentitive it is.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Sat May-29-04 12:50 AM

  
268. "RE: not at all.."
In response to Reply # 267


          

Just going to hit the points that need replying to so we can see about shortening this up.

1) No, Christ is not the attribute, he is the one that personifies the Wisdom of God. When this is actively being personified, he is the one doing it.

2) The Wisdom of God is the Wisdom of God. There is no contextual limitation on this.

3) I'm wondering if you can demonstrate a single use of ARCH ala Rev 3:14 that is not with a partitive genitive. It has been several months since I've done my word study, but that was one of the points I noticed. It was consistently partitive. It sounds like Wallace is reading his theology into things. Christ can't be the one starting it, for the intermediate agent can't start it, the intermediate agent is intermediate. The middle man never makes the product, he only delivers it.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-29-04 08:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
271. "part time wisdom"
In response to Reply # 268


          

>Just going to hit the points that need replying to so we can
>see about shortening this up.

Response: Sure no problem, look like I am going out later on tonight.
>
>1) No, Christ is not the attribute, he is the one that
>personifies the Wisdom of God. When this is actively being
>personified, he is the one doing it.

Response: So that means that Christ is only wisdom part of the time and not all the time. Part time wisdom LOL. So when Paul called Chirst the wisdom of God he was calling him part time wisdom of God, I see.

Being serious when it says that wisdom was created (and you agree it was created) even though Christ is only personifying would you agree that Christ is an *accurate* personifyer of wisdom?

Meaning even though Christ is parttime, would not his personification illustrate an accurate portrayal of what the attribute wisdom really is? A creation, if so then that means that wisdom is created and God was wisdomless, if not that means that Christ is not an accurate personification of the attribute wisdom. Ouch.

>2) The Wisdom of God is the Wisdom of God. There is no
>contextual limitation on this.

Response: But listen, if Christ is an accurate personifier of wisdom, then if he is personifing wisdom at proverbs 8 then that means that wisdom truely was created and God was wisdomless at one point, futhermore, if Christ is not accurate, he misrepresented an attribute of God and therefore sinned.

Futhermore, I found this in response to your professor friend in my Hebrew Textbook, if I am reading it right then I've got the ansewr, this is a pretty technical book. Walke and O'Connor p 109 in Biblical Hebrew Syntax...

" Sometimes the grammatical form of a noun *differs* from its semantic significance, for example, a collective noun such as moledet 'descendents' (fem) or an abstract noun such as qoholet 'teacher'(fem) may have a male referent. When such clashes arise in a language, concord can follow grammaticle gender such as (as it does in Latin or Italian) or it can follow the semantic orientation of the noun: Hebrew prefers the latter course sometimes called the constructio ad sensum (construction according to the sense"). Thus we find hayah gohelet hacam 'the teacher was wise (qol 1 ).

This explains Tony why amon being masucline can have a femal referent i.e. wisdom, Hebrew does this and likes to go with the constructio ad sensum.
>
>3) I'm wondering if you can demonstrate a single use of ARCH
>ala Rev 3:14 that is not with a partitive genitive. It has
>been several months since I've done my word study, but that
>was one of the points I noticed. It was consistently
>partitive.

Response: Umm I don't see Mark 1:1 as partitive.

arche tou euaggeliou, I see that as subjective as well.

Meaning the gospel's start.

It sounds like Wallace is reading his theology
>into things. Christ can't be the one starting it, for the
>intermediate agent can't start it, the intermediate agent is
>intermediate. The middle man never makes the product, he
>only delivers it.
>

Response: Well I think it can refer to him starting, depends on how God worked through him. If Jesus spoke and then God empowered him or worked through him then he is the one who started all things.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Sat May-29-04 08:41 AM

  
273. "strawman arguments and misrepresentation"
In response to Reply # 271


          

>>Just going to hit the points that need replying to so we can
>>see about shortening this up.
>
>Response: Sure no problem, look like I am going out later on
>tonight.
>>
>>1) No, Christ is not the attribute, he is the one that
>>personifies the Wisdom of God. When this is actively being
>>personified, he is the one doing it.
>
>Response: So that means that Christ is only wisdom part of
>the time and not all the time. Part time wisdom LOL. So
>when Paul called Chirst the wisdom of God he was calling him
>part time wisdom of God, I see.

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.

>
>Being serious when it says that wisdom was created (and you
>agree it was created) even though Christ is only
>personifying would you agree that Christ is an *accurate*
>personifyer of wisdom?

Reply2: Yes, Christ is accurate, for all of wisdom dwells in him (Col 2:3).

>
>Meaning even though Christ is parttime, would not his
>personification illustrate an accurate portrayal of what the
>attribute wisdom really is? A creation, if so then that
>means that wisdom is created and God was wisdomless, if not
>that means that Christ is not an accurate personification of
>the attribute wisdom. Ouch.

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.

>
>>2) The Wisdom of God is the Wisdom of God. There is no
>>contextual limitation on this.
>
>Response: But listen, if Christ is an accurate personifier
>of wisdom, then if he is personifing wisdom at proverbs 8
>then that means that wisdom truely was created and God was
>wisdomless at one point, futhermore, if Christ is not
>accurate, he misrepresented an attribute of God and
>therefore sinned.

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.

>
>Futhermore, I found this in response to your professor
>friend in my Hebrew Textbook, if I am reading it right then
>I've got the ansewr, this is a pretty technical book. Walke
>and O'Connor p 109 in Biblical Hebrew Syntax...
>
>" Sometimes the grammatical form of a noun *differs* from
>its semantic significance, for example, a collective noun
>such as moledet 'descendents' (fem) or an abstract noun such
>as qoholet 'teacher'(fem) may have a male referent. When
>such clashes arise in a language, concord can follow
>grammaticle gender such as (as it does in Latin or Italian)
>or it can follow the semantic orientation of the noun:
>Hebrew prefers the latter course sometimes called the
>constructio ad sensum (construction according to the
>sense"). Thus we find hayah gohelet hacam 'the teacher was
>wise (qol 1 ).
>

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.

>This explains Tony why amon being masucline can have a femal
>referent i.e. wisdom, Hebrew does this and likes to go with
>the constructio ad sensum.

Reply2: Yes, it does, because the gender of the person is masculine! If the gender of the person were feminine, it would say AMONAH.

>>
>>3) I'm wondering if you can demonstrate a single use of ARCH
>>ala Rev 3:14 that is not with a partitive genitive. It has
>>been several months since I've done my word study, but that
>>was one of the points I noticed. It was consistently
>>partitive.
>
>Response: Umm I don't see Mark 1:1 as partitive.
>
>arche tou euaggeliou, I see that as subjective as well.
>
>Meaning the gospel's start.

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.

>
>It sounds like Wallace is reading his theology
>>into things. Christ can't be the one starting it, for the
>>intermediate agent can't start it, the intermediate agent is
>>intermediate. The middle man never makes the product, he
>>only delivers it.
>>
>
>Response: Well I think it can refer to him starting, depends
>on how God worked through him. If Jesus spoke and then God
>empowered him or worked through him then he is the one who
>started all things.

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.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-29-04 10:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
282. "FINISH HIM !!!!!!!!!!!"
In response to Reply # 273


          

>
>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?
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>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.
>>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.
>
>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...

A partitive has to be part of a whole, Mark is not presenting part of the gospel, he is presenting all of it.
>
>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.

Oso flips back, the screen gets dark, he grabs tony's head and FINISH HIM.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Sat May-29-04 10:30 AM

  
284. "This ain't mortal combat... start back peddling.."
In response to Reply # 282


          

>>
>>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..

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-29-04 11:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
288. "george, malachi, time to get your boy"
In response to Reply # 284


          


Tony: IF you cannot provide scripture for the following , don't waste your time.

>Reply3: Basic logic dictates that a person is not an
>attribute. Another case of just arguing to argue.

Respnse: So you disagree with Paul when he says that Christ is wisdom, if you disagree with that statement and want it to mean something else than what I am saying, then provide scripture, otherwise it is time to move on.
>
>Reply3: I'm not reading personifier into the text, because
>the text is the personifier speaking.

Response: So now the text is the personifier? Are you even readin what you write?? And can you support this with scripture, if not then it is time to move on. This is a non response
>>>
>
>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.

Response: I asked for scripture support not common sense, that is three non responses. Time to move on Tony, ya got nothing here.
>
>Reply3: An attribute can't speak, the personifier of the
>attribute can.

Response: And that attribute is Christ according to Paul, if you disagree then provide scripture, other wise, it's time to hang it up.

>>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?

Response: Not at all my qoute illustrates that AMON bieng masucline can have a feminine referent. And that is what it is. That is why Amon can be used instead of AMONAH.
>
>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...

Response: That is what Walke said, that a masculine word can have a feminine referent. Qohelet was fem its referent was Solomon, Amon is mascuine, it referent is wisdom.
>
>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.

Response: You did not read, I said as a SUBJECTIVE (genitive) it would read.

Jesus Christ Son of God gospel begins as it is written,

In a subjective genitive the genitive becomes the subject and a verbal noun is requirede. That is how you can tell it is a subjective genitive if I am able to do this. If I cant it is something else.
>
>Reply3: The beginning of the gospel is presented in the
>prophets. That is his point. It is obviously partitive.

Response: But that does not make it part of the prophets.

>>Reply3: The sentence is part of verse 2, which makes the
>beginning = what has been written in the prophets.

Response: LOL that does not make it part of the prophets.

>>Reply3: Application of common sense and a quick contextual
>check goes a long way to help you see the facts..

Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Sat May-29-04 11:18 AM

  
290. "This is your brain on drugs... any questions?"
In response to Reply # 288


          

>
>Tony: IF you cannot provide scripture for the following ,
>don't waste your time.
>
>>Reply3: Basic logic dictates that a person is not an
>>attribute. Another case of just arguing to argue.
>
>Respnse: So you disagree with Paul when he says that Christ
>is wisdom, if you disagree with that statement and want it
>to mean something else than what I am saying, then provide
>scripture, otherwise it is time to move on.

Reply4: Paul is obviously not teaching Christ is an attribute. This is evident by verse 30. Christ has "become to us Wisdom". How did he become Wisdom to them? By personifying the attribute, teaching them. We further know he is not the attribute from Col 2:3, where wisdom (the attribute is in him). It makes no sense to say he is in himself. Obviously the attribute vs. the personification.


>>
>>Reply3: I'm not reading personifier into the text, because
>>the text is the personifier speaking.
>
>Response: So now the text is the personifier? Are you even
>readin what you write?? And can you support this with
>scripture, if not then it is time to move on. This is a non
>response
>>>>

Reply4: This has been my position from the beginning. Let me break it down for you.

Christ is the personifier of Wisdom.
When "Wisdom" is speaking, because an attribute cannot speak, the personifier is doing it.
Christ is the personifier because all the treasures of wisdom dwell in him, but because of this, we also know that he is not the attribute.

>>
>>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.
>
>Response: I asked for scripture support not common sense,
>that is three non responses. Time to move on Tony, ya got
>nothing here.

Reply4: Scripture is Col 2:3 and 1 Cor 1:30 that demonstrate Christ is not the attribute.

>>
>>Reply3: An attribute can't speak, the personifier of the
>>attribute can.
>
>Response: And that attribute is Christ according to Paul, if
>you disagree then provide scripture, other wise, it's time
>to hang it up.
>

Reply4: Nope, Paul does not argue that Christ is the attribute. This is nothing more than your assumption. Verse 30 does not allow for it to be the attribute, for Christ cannot become an attribute.

>>>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?
>
>Response: Not at all my qoute illustrates that AMON bieng
>masucline can have a feminine referent. And that is what it
>is. That is why Amon can be used instead of AMONAH.

Reply4: LOL. You are confused. The context of the statement was regarding cases where the feminine noun is applied to a male, such as congregator to Solomon. It has no bearing when there is a masculine and feminine form of the SAME word. See, again you are ASSUMING Wisdom is a female. This is entirely your assumption.

>>
>>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...
>
>Response: That is what Walke said, that a masculine word can
>have a feminine referent. Qohelet was fem its referent was
>Solomon, Amon is mascuine, it referent is wisdom.

Reply4: AMONAH is the feminine form of AMON, which, if the referent is feminine, is the form that is used. The quote was in reference to places where there is not a form that matches the gender of the referent.

>>
>>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.
>
>Response: You did not read, I said as a SUBJECTIVE
>(genitive) it would read.
>
>Jesus Christ Son of God gospel begins as it is written,

Reply4: LOL. Except it doesn't say that at all. It is obviously partitive. Read it as it naturally reads, which is not this way. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" is the natural and obvious way to translate it.

>
>In a subjective genitive the genitive becomes the subject
>and a verbal noun is requirede. That is how you can tell it
>is a subjective genitive if I am able to do this. If I cant
>it is something else.
>>
>>Reply3: The beginning of the gospel is presented in the
>>prophets. That is his point. It is obviously partitive.
>
>Response: But that does not make it part of the prophets.

Reply4: The writings of the prophets are what consistuted the beginning of the gospel.

>
>>>Reply3: The sentence is part of verse 2, which makes the
>>beginning = what has been written in the prophets.
>
>Response: LOL that does not make it part of the prophets.

Reply4: READ WHAT I AM WRITING. The beginning of the gospel = what is written in the prophets. That is what is being argued.

>
>>>Reply3: Application of common sense and a quick contextual
>>check goes a long way to help you see the facts..
>
>Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.

Reply4: I'm done? LOL. I've lost track of how many points you've either conceded or just stopped replying to me about.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-29-04 11:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
294. "Last one, unless ya got something better"
In response to Reply # 290


          

Alright I will answer this one, then I think I am going to be ghost, there are close to 300 post, and I have answered everything.

>Reply4: Paul is obviously not teaching Christ is an
>attribute. This is evident by verse 30. Christ has "become
>to us Wisdom". How did he become Wisdom to them? By
>personifying the attribute, teaching them.

Respnse: That is crap, he became wisdom to us by teaching us about salvationm, since that is what the verse is talking about.

We further know
>he is not the attribute from Col 2:3, where wisdom (the
>attribute is in him). It makes no sense to say he is in
>himself. Obviously the attribute vs. the personification.

Response: knowldge is attributed to him there as well, are you now saying that knowledge is being personified as well? And actually he is refuting proto gnosticm which boasted of having secret knowledge, that is why Paul is saying Christ is all wisdom and he is the fullness of diety in bodily form, because the body was viewed as bad.
>
>>Reply4: This has been my position from the beginning. Let
>me break it down for you.
>
>Christ is the personifier of Wisdom.
>When "Wisdom" is speaking, because an attribute cannot
>speak, the personifier is doing it.
>Christ is the personifier because all the treasures of
>wisdom dwell in him, but because of this, we also know that
>he is not the attribute.

Response: All treasuer and wisdom have nothing to do with Proverbs, Paul does not call him an attribute but wisdom himself, he became wisdom of salvation for our sakes, again having nothing to do with proverbs 8. This is acutally quite simple
>>Reply4: Scripture is Col 2:3 and 1 Cor 1:30 that
>demonstrate Christ is not the attribute.

Response: Boy context means nothing to you does it, you just spit out verses as long as they got the same word in it.
>
>Reply4: Nope, Paul does not argue that Christ is the
>attribute. This is nothing more than your assumption.
>Verse 30 does not allow for it to be the attribute, for
>Christ cannot become an attribute.

Response: No he is talknig about salvation, oh nevermind you aer not interested in context.
>>Reply4: LOL. You are confused. The context of the
>statement was regarding cases where the feminine noun is
>applied to a male, such as congregator to Solomon. It has
>no bearing when there is a masculine and feminine form of
>the SAME word. See, again you are ASSUMING Wisdom is a
>female. This is entirely your assumption.

Response: Well that is because I realize that when you personify something you make it a person. Since abstract nouns can be different than there referent Solomon could have been talking about a male all along. And used *he*
>
>>>>Reply4: AMONAH is the feminine form of AMON, which, if the
>referent is feminine, is the form that is used. The quote
>was in reference to places where there is not a form that
>matches the gender of the referent.

Respnse: So therefore wisdom could have been a he.
>>
>Reply4: The writings of the prophets are what consistuted
>the beginning of the gospel.

Response: The thing written in the prophets was the prediction of JOhn the baptist coming, not lining up the gospel with the prophets. At least that is what Mark says.

>Reply4: READ WHAT I AM WRITING. The beginning of the
>gospel = what is written in the prophets. That is what is
>being argued.

Response: That is not what Mark says, he is talkng about John's coming, not equating them with the prophets.
>
>>Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.
>
>Reply4: I'm done? LOL. I've lost track of how many points
>you've either conceded or just stopped replying to me about.

Response: Yep you are doine and I am tired, when I conceded either you had a good point, or I double checked with my professor and changed my mind, and if I stopped replying it is because there three hundred post on here, and I, by myself cannot get to them all, trust me I am tired. If you have not noticed I replyed to everyone on here, alone. So if you really want to keep discussing or want to keep in contact I am ont leavnig the site totally, so you can hook up with me later or I can inbox me. But three hundred post is a little much, I'd like it to be more casual.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Sat May-29-04 12:20 PM

  
296. "its already better than anything you have..."
In response to Reply # 294


          

>Alright I will answer this one, then I think I am going to
>be ghost, there are close to 300 post, and I have answered
>everything.
>

Reply5: Answered? LOL. If you call answering, saying things like "I didn't know about that..." Or Simply failing to understand grammatical vs. natural gender.. Or failing to present evidence for your position (like demonstrating that a purely qualitative count noun even exists)... or simply denying things because they don't fit your view, without providing evidence.. then yeah, thats answering. However, i don't think you'll find a dictionary that provides that definition...

>>Reply4: Paul is obviously not teaching Christ is an
>>attribute. This is evident by verse 30. Christ has "become
>>to us Wisdom". How did he become Wisdom to them? By
>>personifying the attribute, teaching them.
>
>Respnse: That is crap, he became wisdom to us by teaching us
>about salvationm, since that is what the verse is talking
>about.
>

Reply5: Which is EXACTLY my point. If Christ was the attribute of Wisdom, he could not have become Wisdom to us, he would have simply been.

> We further know
>>he is not the attribute from Col 2:3, where wisdom (the
>>attribute is in him). It makes no sense to say he is in
>>himself. Obviously the attribute vs. the personification.
>
>Response: knowldge is attributed to him there as well, are
>you now saying that knowledge is being personified as well?
>And actually he is refuting proto gnosticm which boasted of
>having secret knowledge, that is why Paul is saying Christ
>is all wisdom and he is the fullness of diety in bodily
>form, because the body was viewed as bad.

Reply: You missed my point completely. Him having the attributes shows that he is not the attribute.

>>
>>>Reply4: This has been my position from the beginning. Let
>>me break it down for you.
>>
>>Christ is the personifier of Wisdom.
>>When "Wisdom" is speaking, because an attribute cannot
>>speak, the personifier is doing it.
>>Christ is the personifier because all the treasures of
>>wisdom dwell in him, but because of this, we also know that
>>he is not the attribute.
>
>Response: All treasuer and wisdom have nothing to do with
>Proverbs, Paul does not call him an attribute but wisdom
>himself, he became wisdom of salvation for our sakes, again
>having nothing to do with proverbs 8. This is acutally
>quite simple

Reply5: Missed it again. I'm using these points to demonstrate that he is not the attribute, but that the attribute is personified in him.

>>>Reply4: Scripture is Col 2:3 and 1 Cor 1:30 that
>>demonstrate Christ is not the attribute.
>
>Response: Boy context means nothing to you does it, you just
>spit out verses as long as they got the same word in it.

Reply5: Context is everything. You're just not getting my point... or you are intentially misrepresenting me, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

>>
>>Reply4: Nope, Paul does not argue that Christ is the
>>attribute. This is nothing more than your assumption.
>>Verse 30 does not allow for it to be the attribute, for
>>Christ cannot become an attribute.
>
>Response: No he is talknig about salvation, oh nevermind you
>aer not interested in context.

Reply5: AND SO THIS MEANS CHRIST IS NOT THE ATTRIBUTE.

>>>Reply4: LOL. You are confused. The context of the
>>statement was regarding cases where the feminine noun is
>>applied to a male, such as congregator to Solomon. It has
>>no bearing when there is a masculine and feminine form of
>>the SAME word. See, again you are ASSUMING Wisdom is a
>>female. This is entirely your assumption.
>
>Response: Well that is because I realize that when you
>personify something you make it a person. Since abstract
>nouns can be different than there referent Solomon could
>have been talking about a male all along. And used *he*

Reply5: That is just it, NO HE COULDN'T, because the NOUN FOR WISDOM IS FEMININE, THUS REQUIRING IT TO BE FEMININE, NO MATTER WHAT THE GENDER OF THE PERSONIFIER IS.

>>
>>>>>Reply4: AMONAH is the feminine form of AMON, which, if the
>>referent is feminine, is the form that is used. The quote
>>was in reference to places where there is not a form that
>>matches the gender of the referent.
>
>Respnse: So therefore wisdom could have been a he.

Reply5: And it is NATURALLY A HE, but GRAMMATICALLY A SHE.

>>>
>>Reply4: The writings of the prophets are what consistuted
>>the beginning of the gospel.
>
>Response: The thing written in the prophets was the
>prediction of JOhn the baptist coming, not lining up the
>gospel with the prophets. At least that is what Mark says.

Reply5: What writing of the prophets is attributed as being the beginning of the gospel about Jesus? It was about John... And when Mark writes his gospel, how does he begin? He talks about John... Everything started with John...

>
>>Reply4: READ WHAT I AM WRITING. The beginning of the
>>gospel = what is written in the prophets. That is what is
>>being argued.
>
>Response: That is not what Mark says, he is talkng about
>John's coming, not equating them with the prophets.

Reply5: Let me further clarify. What is written in the prophets = John. That is what they are writing about. John is the one who started it. He was born first.. he began his ministry first, ect.. and he baptized Jesus. So John's work was the beginning of the gospel of Christ.

>>
>>>Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.
>>
>>Reply4: I'm done? LOL. I've lost track of how many points
>>you've either conceded or just stopped replying to me about.
>
>Response: Yep you are doine and I am tired, when I conceded
>either you had a good point, or I double checked with my
>professor and changed my mind, and if I stopped replying it
>is because there three hundred post on here, and I, by
>myself cannot get to them all, trust me I am tired. If you
>have not noticed I replyed to everyone on here, alone. So
>if you really want to keep discussing or want to keep in
>contact I am ont leavnig the site totally, so you can hook
>up with me later or I can inbox me. But three hundred post
>is a little much, I'd like it to be more casual.

Reply5: Funny, because I keep finding more and more evidence for my position has we go. It just keeps stacking up. You deny things, but that is the best you seem to have.. and you bounce around, ect, ect. Be done. Doesn't matter to me. I've made my point, and there are tons of points I've made that you simply have failed to answer or do not understand sufficiently (gender in Hebrew) to answer, but try nevertheless.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
btony

Thu May-27-04 10:15 AM

  
175. "Are you trying to say that CHOKMAH is not AMON?"
In response to Reply # 165


          

Osoclasi,

You wrote the following two bits:

>
>Response: Actually she is like an architech.
>>
>
>Response: NOt if she is being compared.
>>

From this, I'm thinking you might be trying to argue that Wisdom is only similar to AMON or somehow compared to AMON. This is incorrect. The text says ah-MON not Ke-ah-MON which would be translated "as a craftsman". Indeed Wisdom is assigned the NATURAL gender of a male, for the writer specifically used the masculine form instead of the feminine.

Regards,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu May-27-04 12:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
179. "RE: Are you trying to say that CHOKMAH is not AMON?"
In response to Reply # 175


          

>Osoclasi,
>
>You wrote the following two bits:
>>>
>
>From this, I'm thinking you might be trying to argue that
>Wisdom is only similar to AMON or somehow compared to AMON.
>This is incorrect. The text says ah-MON not Ke-ah-MON which
>would be translated "as a craftsman". Indeed Wisdom is
>assigned the NATURAL gender of a male, for the writer

Response: Well as you know the ke is not always present in Hebrew whem making comparisons. And secondly, it says va'eheyah etzelu amon. I was by his side an architech, or I was by his side as an architech. But it does not say that wisdom's name is architech, so therefore it is describing the work that she is doing, she is an architech. But it does not mean that she is male. Now if wisdom were changed to *the architech* and that was it's name, I'd understand.
>specifically used the masculine form instead of the
>feminine.
>
>Regards,
>Tony

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
btony

Thu May-27-04 02:25 PM

  
197. "AMON, not AMONAH."
In response to Reply # 179


          

Missed it again. It uses the masculine AMON instead of the feminine AMONAH. Solomon had the choice, he used the masculine. If the NATURAL gender of Wisdom here was feminine, AMONAH would NATURALLY be used.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 01:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
203. "RE: AMON, not AMONAH."
In response to Reply # 197


          

>Missed it again. It uses the masculine AMON instead of the
>feminine AMONAH. Solomon had the choice, he used the
>masculine. If the NATURAL gender of Wisdom here was
>feminine, AMONAH would NATURALLY be used.
>

Response: Amon there is not being used as a name, but rather as a desciption of what wisdom is doing, it does not matter what gender it is in.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:26 AM

  
209. "Oh please... give me a break"
In response to Reply # 203


          

You think Solomon was so terribly sloppy to go hopping around in gender for no apparent reason? AMON is obviously used for a reason. CHOKMAH is simply refered to as a female because of gramamtical reasons, but OBVIOUSLY, Solomon saw a chance to insert the masculine here and took it. You are in such denial at this point that it is just sad.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 02:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
211. "you need a break"
In response to Reply # 209


          

>You think Solomon was so terribly sloppy to go hopping
>around in gender for no apparent reason?

Response: Yeah I think you are simply reading into the text, because Wisdom is desribed as a she the entire 9 chapters, unless you want to say that she all of a suddened changed.

AMON is obviously
>used for a reason. CHOKMAH is simply refered to as a female
>because of gramamtical reasons, but OBVIOUSLY, Solomon saw a
>chance to insert the masculine here and took it. You are in
>such denial at this point that it is just sad.

Response: Chokmah is refered to as a she because wisdom is being *personified* hello, knock, knock.

Not for grammatical reasons alone. But hey your idea almost worked.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:48 AM

  
213. "You're stuck between a rock and a hard place..."
In response to Reply # 211


          

>>You think Solomon was so terribly sloppy to go hopping
>>around in gender for no apparent reason?
>
>Response: Yeah I think you are simply reading into the text,
>because Wisdom is desribed as a she the entire 9 chapters,
>unless you want to say that she all of a suddened changed.
>
>AMON is obviously
>>used for a reason. CHOKMAH is simply refered to as a female
>>because of gramamtical reasons, but OBVIOUSLY, Solomon saw a
>>chance to insert the masculine here and took it. You are in
>>such denial at this point that it is just sad.
>
>Response: Chokmah is refered to as a she because wisdom is
>being *personified* hello, knock, knock.
>
>Not for grammatical reasons alone. But hey your idea almost
>worked.

Since you clearly don't understand basic translation concepts, I'm going to make this really simple. Why is wisdom called a she?

-Tony



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 04:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
223. "oso eats the rock and breaks the hard place"
In response to Reply # 213


          


>
>Since you clearly don't understand basic translation
>concepts, I'm going to make this really simple. Why is
>wisdom called a she?
>

Response: Genre, it's called personification. It goes beyond simply saying that it is an antecedent. Because Solomon has made wisdom personal.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 04:32 AM

  
227. "Wrong..."
In response to Reply # 223


          

Wisdom is feminine because CHOKMAH is a feminine noun. The gender of the noun is feminine and so it DEMANDS a feminine pronoun.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 02:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
237. "and"
In response to Reply # 227


          

>Wisdom is feminine because CHOKMAH is a feminine noun. The
>gender of the noun is feminine and so it DEMANDS a feminine
>pronoun.
>

Respnose: Wisdom is being personified, so since there are no neuters and we are being genre sensitive, Solomon is reall presentign wisdom as a women. Not Christ. THe way you are intrepreting this passage is really forced.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:59 PM

  
240. "Solomon isn't doing it!"
In response to Reply # 237


          

It is the gender of the language! It has NOTHING to do with Solomon.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 03:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
243. "but genre plays a role as well"
In response to Reply # 240


          

>It is the gender of the language! It has NOTHING to do with
>Solomon.
>
Response: This is what I think your professor left out, but I will be responsible and talk to my professor on thursday.

He is not giving any attention to hte type of writting it is.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 03:16 PM

  
245. "nothing to do with it..."
In response to Reply # 243


          

Wisdom in Hebrew is only feminine, so it can only be written with feminine pronouns. You could not write Wisdom as masculine if you wanted to, because that would violate the rules of grammar. That is where the masculine AMON comes into the picture.

And he isn't my professor..

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 03:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
247. "RE: nothing to do with it..."
In response to Reply # 245


          

>Wisdom in Hebrew is only feminine, so it can only be written
>with feminine pronouns. You could not write Wisdom as
>masculine if you wanted to, because that would violate the
>rules of grammar. That is where the masculine AMON comes
>into the picture.

Response: Well if your friend is correct, you are still a long way off from proving it was Christ, but before I agree I will double check first.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 03:44 PM

  
249. "Certainly..."
In response to Reply # 247


          

I'm not saying that this proves it is Christ, but what it does is prove that the natural gender is masculine, which goes a long way in demonstrating that Wisdom here personified actually has someone masculine doing the personification, and if that isn't Christ, I'm curious who it is.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:49 AM

  
214. "Why.. why.. why... you won't answer why.. why?"
In response to Reply # 203


          

Solomon chose the masculine form.. If wisdom is naturally a female, why did he not use the feminine form? Why won't you answer my question?

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 04:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
224. "because, because.... because"
In response to Reply # 214


          

>Solomon chose the masculine form.. If wisdom is naturally a
>female, why did he not use the feminine form? Why won't you
>answer my question?
>

Response: He is describing what she is doing, ( she was besides God as a masterworkman) gender does not matter. The most you could get out of this is saying that the work she was doing is masculine.

Pretty simple when you are just dealing with the text inside of its genre.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 04:31 AM

  
226. "That answer doesn't work..."
In response to Reply # 224


          

Because there is a feminine form which is AMONAH. He used AMON instead of AMONAH. Same word, different gender.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 02:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
238. "its not definite"
In response to Reply # 226


          

>Because there is a feminine form which is AMONAH. He used
>AMON instead of AMONAH. Same word, different gender.
>

Respnse: so she is describing herself (because she is really not called anything) as an architech, that's all nothing more nothing less.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 03:03 PM

  
241. "see post 233 -nt"
In response to Reply # 238


          

nt

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 02:35 PM

  
233. "Further on gender... REALLY stuck in a corner this time"
In response to Reply # 224


          

I talked to a friend of mine who teaches Hebrew out in California. I knew your position was incorrect, but I wanted to get his thoughts on this. After quoting you to him, he said the following:


"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine and require additional data to narrow the gender to one. Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.

"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your correspondent, is not happy with the answer."


So that about sums it up. He has taught Hebrew for 10 years now, knows the langauge way better than either of us do, and so... 'nuff said.

Regards,
Tony


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-28-04 03:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
242. "well let me double check"
In response to Reply # 233


          

with my Herbew professor on Thursday, I would see him on monday but it is memorial day , and I don't go to see again till then.

He is also my Greek professor.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
btony

Fri May-28-04 03:10 PM

  
244. "sounds like a plan -nt"
In response to Reply # 242


          

nt

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
btony

Wed May-26-04 07:46 AM

  
137. "Please translate the following..."
In response to Reply # 119


          

Osoclasi,

I'm going to demonstrate my point to you. Before I do that though, I need you to translate this for me (I want you to do it so you can see what I mean).

hH SOFIA WKODOMHSEN hEAUTH OIKON

After doing this, we can continue.

Thanks,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 03:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
142. "RE: Please translate the following..."
In response to Reply # 137
Wed May-26-04 03:55 PM

          

>Osoclasi,
>
>I'm going to demonstrate my point to you. Before I do that
>though, I need you to translate this for me (I want you to
>do it so you can see what I mean).
>
>hH SOFIA WKODOMHSEN hEAUTH OIKON
>
>After doing this, we can continue.

Response: You need to transliterate a little better, all I can make out is wisdom built and house, the small *h* verses the big *H* is weird it looks like Matt 7:24 but transliterated wrong

what on earth is hH is that suppose to be hen?

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
btony

Wed May-26-04 03:58 PM

  
143. "RE: Please translate the following..."
In response to Reply # 142


          

I am transliterating based on the standard B-Greek transliteration scheme. hH is the nominative feminine article.

-Tony


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed May-26-04 05:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
147. "RE: Please translate the following..."
In response to Reply # 143


          

>I am transliterating based on the standard B-Greek
>transliteration scheme. hH is the nominative feminine
>article.
>

Respnse: never heard of a standard b scheme before, I don't have the verse in front of me but if I remember it was wisdom built a house or something like that.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
btony

Wed May-26-04 07:18 PM

  
155. "So you don't really know Greek...."
In response to Reply # 147


          

Ok, I'm glad we've established that. I actually wasn't trying to test that, but it has become obvious now.

hH SOFIA WKODOMHSEN hEAUTH OIKON
wisdom has built for herself a home

The question I was going to ask you was why hEAUTH is a feminine pronoun? The answer is because the feminine noun demands a feminine pronoun. This is grammatical gender. There is no person identified for who wisdom is in this single verse, so we translate based on the gender of the noun, not the natural gender.

My point? It has no bearing on the physical gender of the person and therefore your argument based on wisdom being a woman is in error.

Thanks,
Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu May-27-04 07:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
166. "no its your transliteration"
In response to Reply # 155


          

that makes it hard to read.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
btony

Thu May-27-04 09:36 AM

  
171. "Guess you've never written Greek or typed it..."
In response to Reply # 166


          

If you can read it in Greek characters, it is easier to read it this way, because this is the closest possible english character -> Greek character. For example, if you wrote in a Greek font on the computer, the characters I use would be the appropriate ones for the corresponding one in the Greek font.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu May-27-04 12:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
180. "no I would have written it like this instead"
In response to Reply # 171


          

>If you can read it in Greek characters, it is easier to read
>it this way, because this is the closest possible english
>character -> Greek character. For example, if you wrote in
>a Greek font on the computer, the characters I use would be
>the appropriate ones for the corresponding one in the Greek
>font.
>
Response: First of all there is no hH on my computer, and you had all sorts of weird looking stuff going on there.

I would have typed it like this...
he sofia hokosomesen heaute oikon but that is ok it really does not matter.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
btony

Thu May-27-04 02:26 PM

  
198. "RE: no I would have written it like this instead"
In response to Reply # 180


          

Go to the B-Greek discussion group.. see how people who KNOW Greek do it.

-Tony

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Wed Jun-02-04 12:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
367. "ignore"
In response to Reply # 79
Wed Jun-02-04 12:08 PM

          

wrong spot..

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Let me tell you why Acts 5:3,4 is irrelevant:"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


>For the Holy Spirit we have Acts 5:3-4, where lying to the
>Holy Spirit is equavalent to lying to God.
>
>Acts 5:3
>But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to
>lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of
>the land?
>
>Acts 5:4
>"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And
>after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it
>that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have
>not lied to men but to God."

Yes Ananias "lied" or "played false" to the holy spirit, and that was just like lying to God. SO WHAT? Is that supposed to be a point? If you call my ANSWERING MACHINE, and leave a message that is an outright lie, you didn't speak to ME, you spoke to my ANSWERING MACHINE. But it's just like you lied to ME because I will get the false message that you left. Agreed? But that in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM means that ME and the ANSWERING MACHINE ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!! Acts 5:3,4 is a NON-FACTOR in this discussion.

But since you brought up the holy spirit, let's talk about it. Since you have studied Greek, then you know that the word translated "spirit" from the Greek is "pneu'ma", and it is derived from the Greek word "pne'o", meaning "breathe or blow". (It is the etymological ancestor of the word "pneumonia") It's Hebrew counterpart is "ru'ach". Both of these words basically mean "breath". They can also mean "vital force, wind, active force, or HOLY SPIRIT". All of these meanings have something in common: They all refer to something to which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

So the question is, "Does the Bible teach that the holy spirit is a person? While Jesus did refer to the holy spirit as a "helper"(Greek:"para'kletos") or "comforter", that doesn't mean that it is a "person". In a bunch of places the Bible says that people were "filled", "baptized", or "anointed" with holy spirit. (Luke 1:41; Matthew 3:11; Acts 10:38) These references DON'T FIT A PERSON. When the holy spirit is personified it is only a figure of speech. The Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, blood, etc. Not ONE PERSON says that "sin" is a person, or that "water" is a person, or that the quality of "wisdom" is a person...but trinitarians take a verse where holy spirit is personified and run with it IN YET ANOTHER OBVIOUS PLOY TO PROVE THIS PAGAN DOCTRINE.

The Bible tells us the PERSONAL name of God, and it tells us the PERSONAL name of God's Son. But ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE DOES THE BIBLE GIVE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSONAL NAME. If holy spirit is such an important "person" in the trinity, why is it not named? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PERSON.

Another point that comes to mind is at Acts 7:55,56, here Stephen saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." WHY DIDN'T MENTION SEEING THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia ADMITS: "The majority of New Testament texts reveal God's spirit as SOMETHING, NOT SOMEONE; this is especially seen in the PARALLELISM between the SPIRIT and the POWER of God."

I could go on, but I think I've proven that holy spirit is not a person.


"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mcneter

Fri May-21-04 06:39 AM

  
18. "RE: Let me tell you why Acts 5:3,4 is irrelevant:"
In response to Reply # 15


          

Excellent response. Hetep.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Fri May-21-04 06:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
22. "RE: ruach"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

>But since you brought up the holy spirit, let's talk about
>it. Since you have studied Greek, then you know that the
>word translated "spirit" from the Greek is "pneu'ma", and it
>is derived from the Greek word "pne'o", meaning "breathe or
>blow". (It is the etymological ancestor of the word
>"pneumonia") It's Hebrew counterpart is "ru'ach". Both of
>these words basically mean "breath". They can also mean
>"vital force, wind, active force, or HOLY SPIRIT". All of
>these meanings have something in common: They all refer to
>something to which is invisible to human sight and which
>gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is
>capable of producing visible effects.

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

how many times did Jesus also use the words for himself Son of Man. its almost, what 50 times?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri May-21-04 07:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "RE: Let me tell you why Acts 5:3,4 is irrelevant:"
In response to Reply # 15


          

>Yes Ananias "lied" or "played false" to the holy spirit, and
>that was just like lying to God. SO WHAT?

Response: Because to the Holy Spirit is not *Like* lying to God it is lying to God. You added *like* to the passage, it is not there.

Is that supposed
>to be a point? If you call my ANSWERING MACHINE, and leave
>a message that is an outright lie, you didn't speak to ME,
>you spoke to my ANSWERING MACHINE. But it's just like you
>lied to ME because I will get the false message that you
>left. Agreed? But that in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM means
>that ME and the ANSWERING MACHINE ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!!
>Acts 5:3,4 is a NON-FACTOR in this discussion.

Response; To bad they did not have answering machines back then, and you don't lie to an answering maching, since the message is intended for you, you can lie on an answering maching, but the lie is directed towards you. So this verse is a huge factor to this discussion.
>
>So the question is, "Does the Bible teach that the holy
>spirit is a person?

Response: Absolutely, for Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf, forces do not intercede.

Romans 8:26
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;


While Jesus did refer to the holy
>spirit as a "helper"(Greek:"para'kletos") or "comforter",
>that doesn't mean that it is a "person". In a bunch of
>places the Bible says that people were "filled", "baptized",
>or "anointed" with holy spirit. (Luke 1:41; Matthew 3:11;
>Acts 10:38) These references DON'T FIT A PERSON. When the
>holy spirit is personified it is only a figure of speech.

Response: Again, Spirits do not intercede nor are they grieved, nor do they groan with expression to deep for words.

Ephesians 4:30
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

>The Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, blood,
>etc. Not ONE PERSON says that "sin" is a person, or that
>"water" is a person, or that the quality of "wisdom" is a
>person...but trinitarians take a verse where holy spirit is
>personified and run with it IN YET ANOTHER OBVIOUS PLOY TO
>PROVE THIS PAGAN DOCTRINE.

Response: Not at all, because non of those things you listed intercede and know teh thoughts of God.
>
>The Bible tells us the PERSONAL name of God, and it tells us
>the PERSONAL name of God's Son. But ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE DOES
>THE BIBLE GIVE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSONAL NAME. If holy spirit
>is such an important "person" in the trinity, why is it not
>named? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PERSON.

Response: Holy Spirit is a name, so is advocate or helper.
>
>Another point that comes to mind is at Acts 7:55,56, here
>Stephen saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." WHY
>DIDN'T MENTION SEEING THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Response: Because the Holy Spirit was empowering him to see the Father and Son.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Sat May-22-04 06:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "Some additional points..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


>from Vishnu, Brahma, and can't think of the other gods name,
Siva (or Shiva)

>Or my favorite, is that in 325 A.D. the catholic church along >with Constantine (who was not a Theologian and could care less)
No Constantine wasn't a theologian, but as emporer he had influence in the Church, and he desperately wanted unity in his realm. He knew there was a division among the Greek speaking bishops and the Latin speaking bishops as to the realtionship of the Son to the Father. In 325 he called for the council of bishops at Nicea, which was in the Greek speaking part of the empire. Somewhere between 350 and 318 bishops showed up, which was only a minority of the bishops, and the majority of them were from the Greek speaking region, so the council was biased. After fierce debates, the Nicene Creed came out with a HEAVY bias toward Trinitarian thought. Debate continued to rage on for decades, more councils were called, more emporers got involved, and eventually banishment was used to force conformity. (Can you believe that? Believe in the Trinity, or you are banished from the empire...WOW.)

>(Even though there are first and
>second century Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis who
>believed in the Deity of Christ).

And I can name a bunch who knew and understood that Jesus was not God:
Justin Martyr said that Jesus was "other than the God who made all things", and that Jesus "never did anything except what the Creator willed him to do."

Iranaeus said that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God".

Clement of Alexandria said that the Son "is next to the ONLY omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian taught "The Father is different from the Son, as he is GREATER; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said "There was a time when the Son was not...Before all things, God was alone."

In the book "The Church of the First Three Centuries", historian Adam Lamson wrote "that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ, It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and...holy spirit, but NOT AS CO-EQUAL, NOT AS ONE NUMERICAL ESSENCE, NOT AS THREE IN ONE, IN ANY SENSE NOW ADMITTED BY TRINITARIANS. The VERY REVERSE is the fact.

>And finally, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible
I don't use this argument, but I do find it odd that the IDEA of the Trinity ISN'T EVEN IN THE BIBLE!! Not in the Old Testament or the New:

"The Encyclopedia of Religion" ADMITS:Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Edmund Fortman ADMITS in his book "The Triune God" the following: "The Old Testament...tells us nothing EXPLICITLY or by necessary IMPLICATION of a Triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SACRED WRITER EVEN SUSPECTED THE EXISTENCE OF A TRINITY WITHIN THE GODHEAD...Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, IS TO GO BEYOND THE WORDS AND INTENT OF THE SACRED WRITERS."

Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY WAS APPARENTLY UNKNOWN...THEY SPEAK NOTHING ABOUT IT".

In the book "The Paganism in Our Christianity"(WHAT A TITLE!!!) Religious Historian Arthur Weigall, speaking of the trinity doctrine notes "Jesus Christ NEVER MENTIONED SUCH A PHENOMENON...The idea was ONLY adopted by the church THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the death of our Lord."(hmmm, right about the time of the Nicea...)
You mean to tell me, out of 66 books of the Bible NOT ONE CLEARLY EXPLAINS THE TRINITY?!?! GET OUTTA HERE WITH THAT TRICKNOWLEDGY.

>The problem is that many people do not fully understand what
>the trinity is saying, nor understand how to defend it.
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT, INCLUDING TRINITARIANS CLERGYMEN!!! For instance:
"A Dictinary of Religious Knowledge" reads: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

Cardinal John O'Connor states "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand."

And Pope John Paul II calls it "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity"(THE POPE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY!!! THE POPE!!!)

I don't woship a "mystery god". Sounds like a bunch of ADMITTED CONFUSION TO ME. And 1 Corinthians 14:33 says "God is NOT a God of confusion".


>hopefully, when I am finished explaining what it really
>means there will be no confusion.
I doubt it...I doubt it VERY SERIOUSLY. TRINITARIAN CLERGYMEN AND SCHOLARS (who can't even agree on the doctrine themselves) have been trying to explain it for almost 1700 years, and haven't been able to do so adequately, but you think you are gonna do it in a few minutes on okayplayer.com? RIIIIGHT....


"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-22-04 08:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "RE: Some additional rebuttals"
In response to Reply # 38


          

>No Constantine wasn't a theologian, but as emporer he had
>influence in the Church, and he desperately wanted unity in
>his realm. He knew there was a division among the Greek
>speaking bishops and the Latin speaking bishops as to the
>realtionship of the Son to the Father. In 325 he called for
>the council of bishops at Nicea, which was in the Greek
>speaking part of the empire. Somewhere between 350 and 318
>bishops showed up, which was only a minority of the bishops,
>and the majority of them were from the Greek speaking
>region, so the council was biased. After fierce debates,
>the Nicene Creed came out with a HEAVY bias toward
>Trinitarian thought. Debate continued to rage on for
>decades, more councils were called, more emporers got
>involved, and eventually banishment was used to force
>conformity. (Can you believe that? Believe in the Trinity,
>or you are banished from the empire...WOW.)

Response: Uh you forgot the part of how athanasius was also banned and cornered at his house by non trinitarians and had to sneek out of the back in order to save his own life. And you also forgot to mention that the reason for the council being so late was becuase of church persecution, if members of the church were to gather together in one spot, they would be in a world of trouble.

>
>And I can name a bunch who knew and understood that Jesus
>was not God:
>Justin Martyr said that Jesus was "other than the God who
>made all things", and that Jesus "never did anything except
>what the Creator willed him to do."

Response: And there are others who believed such as Ignatius. By the way I notice that non of your qoutes have page numbers of books that one could go and research this for themselves. I can show you my source for church fathers.
>
>>And finally, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible
>I don't use this argument, but I do find it odd that the
>IDEA of the Trinity ISN'T EVEN IN THE BIBLE!! Not in the
>Old Testament or the New:

Response: Actually the word Jehovah is not in the Bible either, but that never stopped you guys.

>I doubt it...I doubt it VERY SERIOUSLY. TRINITARIAN
>CLERGYMEN AND SCHOLARS (who can't even agree on the doctrine
>themselves) have been trying to explain it for almost 1700
>years, and haven't been able to do so adequately, but you
>think you are gonna do it in a few minutes on
>okayplayer.com? RIIIIGHT....

Response: Well I have explained it pretty well so far, any questions?

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
MALACHI
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
10706 posts
Sat May-22-04 11:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "RE: Some additional rebuttals"
In response to Reply # 47


  

          


>Response: Uh you forgot the part of how athanasius was also
>banned and cornered at his house by non trinitarians and had
>to sneek out of the back in order to save his own life. And
>you also forgot to mention that the reason for the council
>being so late was becuase of church persecution, if members
>of the church were to gather together in one spot, they
>would be in a world of trouble.
Point being? So he got chased out of his house...so what? If I, not believing in the trinity, chased you, a trinitarian, out of your house, does that mean your belief is true? NOPE. And church persecution, hindering some from attending really doesn't matter either. The fact of the matter is ALL OF THE ATTENDEES DID NOT AGREE ON THE TRINITARIAN HEAVY BIAS THAT CAME OUT OF IT. But through POLITICAL THREATS, the PAGAN FOUNDATION WAS LAID. Both of these are non-points.

>By the way I notice that non of your qoutes have
>page numbers of books that one could go and research this
>for themselves. I can show you my source for church
>fathers.
I know you aren't implying that I made up the sources...is that what you are doing? I named the authors and the books, if any one thinks I'm lying, read these books and TELL ME I MADE THEM UP...I GUARANTEE NO ONE CAN. Now you are REACHING.

>Response: Actually the word Jehovah is not in the Bible
>either, but that never stopped you guys.
Now you are REALLY REACHING. If you wanna get down like that, the name "Jesus" isn't in there either. You want me to thouroughly explain why I use the name "Jehovah"? Because it is the best known ENGLISH pronunciation of the divine name, AND I SPEAK ENGLISH.(And yes, I know "Yahweh" is favored by many Hebrew scholars.) The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of 4 consonants called the Tetragrammaton, these four letters are generally transliterated into English as YHWH or JHVH. All of the Hebrew letters are unknown, and vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millenium C.E. On top of that, because of superstition, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts doesn't provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name. So THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: Because NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE how the divine name was EXACTLY pronounced in ancient Hebrew, there is NO REASON I should stop saying "Jehovah" which is ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH. If I was gonna stop saying "Jehovah", to be consistent, I wouldn't say "Jeremiah" AS ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH, I would say "Yirmeyah"; I wouldn't say "Isaiah", AS ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH, I would say "Yesha'ya'hu";AND (here comes the clincher here...)I WOULDN'T SAY "JESUS" AS ACCEPTED IN ENGLISH, I WOULD SAY "YEHOH SHU'A'"(as in Hebrew) or "I E SOUS'"(as in Greek). So LOGICALLY, you can't have a problem with the use of the name "Jehovah", because it is an ACCEPTED pronunciation of the divine name in English...If you have a problem with the the use of "Jehovah", that means you have a problem with the name "Jesus", which you OBVIOUSLY DON'T. See what I mean by selective rule application? GET OUTTA HERE WITH THAT BULL.

>Response: Well I have explained it pretty well so far, any
>questions?
No you haven't, and no I don't have any questions, because I knew you couldn't explain it. Go explain it to the Pope, since he says it's an "inscrutable mystery."

"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat May-22-04 01:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "RE: Some additional rebuttals"
In response to Reply # 52


          

>Point being? So he got chased out of his house...so what?

Response: You were making it seem that only the non trinitarians ever suffered persection, that is not true.


>If I, not believing in the trinity, chased you, a
>trinitarian, out of your house, does that mean your belief
>is true? NOPE. And church persecution, hindering some from
>attending really doesn't matter either. The fact of the
>matter is ALL OF THE ATTENDEES DID NOT AGREE ON THE
>TRINITARIAN HEAVY BIAS THAT CAME OUT OF IT. But through
>POLITICAL THREATS, the PAGAN FOUNDATION WAS LAID. Both of
>these are non-points.

Response: No you miss read me, I was saying that church persecution was the reason that the council took place in 325 A.D. as opposed to the first century. And futhermore, I think that Athanasus won the debate, he argued skillfully against Arius and Arius had no rebuttal. The trinity is no where near pagan, it is biblical and I for one am glad God chose to reveal his nature to us.

>I know you aren't implying that I made up the sources...is
>that what you are doing? I named the authors and the books,
>if any one thinks I'm lying, read these books and TELL ME I
>MADE THEM UP...I GUARANTEE NO ONE CAN. Now you are
>REACHING.

Response: No I am not reaching, it is just that Jehovah Witnesses's are notorious for not giving out there sources. For example in your NWT, it does not tell you who translated it, and I know they wanted to be humble, (wink, wink). But I don't buy that arguement at all.

>Now you are REALLY REACHING. If you wanna get down like
>that, the name "Jesus" isn't in there either.

Response; Ok then, find