Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Blocked

Hi Kerwin,

I believe that the phrase “ALL THINGS” has the default meaning of ALL THINGS. I agree with you that context and/or logic COULD narrow the scope of the phrase to include only certain things. But I don't see any context in John 1:3, Col 1:16, or 1 Cor 8:6 that would make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to anyone that the phrase has a more narrow scope than ALL THINGS. And if it's not ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, then I believe the default meaning of “ALL THINGS” should take precedence.

Kerwin, can you give me ANY scriptural or logical reason Paul could not actually mean “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6?

mike

September 29, 2011 at 2:25 am#259577

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2011,06:33)

Hi Kerwin,

Kerwin, can you give me ANY scriptural or logical reason Paul could not actually mean “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6?

mike

Mike,

I already gave you my reasoning for believing it is all things taught by the Spirit.

September 29, 2011 at 2:33 am#259579

Blocked

I'm not asking what YOU think it means. I'm asking if there is any scriptural or logical reason that it CAN'T mean exactly what it says – “ALL THINGS”?

September 29, 2011 at 3:45 am#259588

Participant

kerwin

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father,FROM whom all things came and FOR whom we live ; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came and THROUGH whom we live

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT PAUL IS SAYING OPEN YOUR EYES AND HEART THEN ANSWER MIKE'S QUESTION, THANKS

Pierre

September 29, 2011 at 12:51 pm#259604

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,09:45)

kerwin

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT PAUL IS SAYING OPEN YOUR EYES AND HEART THEN ANSWER MIKE'S QUESTION, THANKS

Pierre

Pierre,

Do you perhaps believe the rest of the teaching about the eating of foods sacrificed to idols, of which that passage is one of many parts, doesn't exist?

I ask that since that teaching does not pertain to the creative aspect of God but rather to those things God reveals by his Spirit through his Son.

Just read it and see.

September 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm#259605

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2011,08:33)

I'm not asking what YOU think it means. I'm asking if there is any scriptural or logical reason that it CAN'T mean exactly what it says – “ALL THINGS”?

Mike,

It would not be an internally consistent teaching as Paul is teaching about righteousness and not about the creative aspect of God.

September 29, 2011 at 2:26 pm#259608

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 30 2011,06:51)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,09:45)

kerwin

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT PAUL IS SAYING OPEN YOUR EYES AND HEART THEN ANSWER MIKE'S QUESTION, THANKS

Pierre

Pierre,

Do you perhaps believe the rest of the teaching about the eating of foods sacrificed to idols, of which that passage is one of many parts, doesn't exist?

I ask that since that teaching does not pertain to the creative aspect of God but rather to those things God reveals by his Spirit through his Son.

Just read it and see.

kerwin

in 1Cor 8;6

does Paul express himself to the things of food and other needs ?

or ALL THINGS ? this would mean ALL INCLUSIVE ,RIGHT ?THINGS WE RECEIVE (CAME ) FROM GOD,AND IT IS FOR GOD WE LIVE ,RIGHT ?YES

THEN HE GOES ON “BUT THERE IS ONE LORD ,JESUS CHRIST THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS CAME AND THROUGH WHOM WE LIVE”

question one;through ALL THINGS CAME ;witch are those things and ALL is this ALL inclusive ?

and through whom we live ' IS THIS ONLY RELATED TO THOSE WHO LIVE FROM CHRIST ON OR IS IT ALL INCLUSIVE ?

if ALL THINGS; IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE WHAT IS IT THAT IS NOT INCLUDED ?of cause God is father is not included in Christ ALL THINGS ,
BUT WHAT IS “ALL THINGS” CAME FROM GOD THIS WOULD INCLUDE CHRIST ,RIGHT ,YES;BECAUSE WE ALL(INCLUDING CHRIST) LIVE FOR.

so this ALL THINGS does not stop here Paul keep talking about in his letter of Colossians

Col 1:15 He(Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over ALL creation.(again is this all inclusive except the father??)
Col 1:16 For by him ALL THINGS (again all means all inclusive except the father ?) were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,(WHEN WERE ALL THOSE THINGS CREATED ??IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH ? WAS THIS ONLY CREATED WHEN HE APPEARS AS A MAN ?OF CAUSE NOT HEAVEN AND EARTH WAS ALREADY CREATED “PAUL GOES ON SAYING THAT CHRIST WAS BEFORE ALL THINGS ) whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He(CHRIST) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, (AND WHAT DOES IT MEANS “all his fullness dwell in him”IS IT ALL INCLUSIVE EXCEPT GOD HIS FATHER WHO GIVE IT TO HIM?YES)
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Pr 8:22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
Pr 8:23 I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
Pr 8:24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
Pr 8:25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
Pr 8:26 before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
Pr 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
Pr 8:28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
Pr 8:29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
Pr 8:30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
Pr 8:31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.

IN PROVERBS WE CAN SEE WHAT JOHN SAID ; Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

THIS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD UNTIL CHRIST CAME AND MAKE IT KNOWN TO HIS DISCIPLES THIS IS THE “SUPREMACY OF CHRIST”

some may think this is the wisdom of God not Christ ;well does God need wisdom ? or he is wisdom and truth ,why would God share with himself what is is own ,does not make sense, or why would God create wisdom if he has it all in him ?

IF WE LOOK AT THE COMBINATION OF ALL THOSE SCRIPTURES WE CAN SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE ,AND THAT IS THAT CHRIST CAME FROM HEAVEN LIKE HE SAID ALL ALONG,AND THAT HE IS THE FIRST OF GOD S CREATION.AND SO PREEXISTED HIS COMING TO EARTH AS A MAN.

Pierre

September 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm#259611

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 29 2011,23:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2011,08:33)

I'm not asking what YOU think it means. I'm asking if there is any scriptural or logical reason that it CAN'T mean exactly what it says – “ALL THINGS”?

Mike,

It would not be an internally consistent teaching as Paul is teaching about righteousness and not about the creative aspect of God.

Kerwin………..You have this right Paul was talking about Spiritual things that God was doing in his new creation, creating all thing in a spiritual way and Jesus was the first of Humanity and through him , that same process of(the Christos) or Anointing of Spirit He is creating all thing. What Paul was addressing concerning Jesus had nothing to do with the physical creation. But the “NEW CREATION” being created by GOD through Jesus the Christos. You have it right on this. IMO

peace and love…………………………………..gene

September 29, 2011 at 3:44 pm#259612

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Sep. 29 2011,21:36)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 29 2011,23:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2011,08:33)

I'm not asking what YOU think it means. I'm asking if there is any scriptural or logical reason that it CAN'T mean exactly what it says – “ALL THINGS”?

Mike,

It would not be an internally consistent teaching as Paul is teaching about righteousness and not about the creative aspect of God.

peace and love…………………………………..gene

Gene,

In a general sense Paul was teaching of the new creation in 1 Corinthians 8 but specifically he was teaching how to correctly apply the knowledge of the Spirit without being led astray and applying the knowledge according to the spirit of man.

September 29, 2011 at 4:08 pm#259614

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Kerwin………….”So a man thinks so He (IS)”, It is all about Spirit rather the spirit of GOD or the Spirit of the World. The Spirit (INTELLECT) of GOD is the way GOD Thinks, the Spirit(intellect) of the World is the way the world thinks. Sow to the Spiirt of GOD and you will have life So to the Spiriit of the World and you will reap death.

For the Kingdom of GOD is like unto a Man who Planted good seed in his field and went to bed and rose the next day, and soon the Seed began to grow HE DID NOT KNOW HOW IT GROW FOR THE EARTH (heart) brings forth from itself first a blade then the small head appears then the full head , and when it is fully ripe and ready he goes forth and harvests it. God Spiirt produces of it self (IN) our hearts this is making the cup clean on the (INSIDE) that the outside may be clean also. What ever we do is a result of Spirit that is working (IN) Us rather of the World or OF GOD. IMO

peace and love…………………………………………………..gene

September 29, 2011 at 4:10 pm#259615

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,20:26)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 30 2011,06:51)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,09:45)

kerwin

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT PAUL IS SAYING OPEN YOUR EYES AND HEART THEN ANSWER MIKE'S QUESTION, THANKS

Pierre

Pierre,

Do you perhaps believe the rest of the teaching about the eating of foods sacrificed to idols, of which that passage is one of many parts, doesn't exist?

I ask that since that teaching does not pertain to the creative aspect of God but rather to those things God reveals by his Spirit through his Son.

Just read it and see.

kerwin

in 1Cor 8;6

does Paul express himself to the things of food and other needs ?

or ALL THINGS ? this would mean ALL INCLUSIVE ,RIGHT ?THINGS WE RECEIVE (CAME ) FROM GOD,AND IT IS FOR GOD WE LIVE ,RIGHT ?YES

THEN HE GOES ON “BUT THERE IS ONE LORD ,JESUS CHRIST THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS CAME AND THROUGH WHOM WE LIVE”

question one;through ALL THINGS CAME ;witch are those things and ALL is this ALL inclusive ?

and through whom we live ' IS THIS ONLY RELATED TO THOSE WHO LIVE FROM CHRIST ON OR IS IT ALL INCLUSIVE ?

so this ALL THINGS does not stop here Paul keep talking about in his letter of Colossians

THIS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD UNTIL CHRIST CAME AND MAKE IT KNOWN TO HIS DISCIPLES THIS IS THE “SUPREMACY OF CHRIST”

Pierre

Pierre,

I am confident you know what Jesus means about “all things” in this passage.

Quote

John 14:26
New International Version (NIV)

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Do you agree with me that Paul is speaking of those same kind of things in the following passage.

Quote

1 Corinthians 8
New International Version (NIV)

1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.

In the next passage you will see the same type of things.

Quote

1 Corinthians 8
New International Version (NIV)

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Even the knowledge mentioned in the following verse leading up to the passage being addressed it is the knowledge is the same type of thing spoken of in John 14:26.

Quote

1 Corinthians 8
New International Version (NIV)

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is
no God but one.”

September 30, 2011 at 12:31 am#259636

Blocked

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,08:26)

kerwin

in 1Cor 8;6

does Paul express himself to the things of food and other needs ?

or ALL THINGS ? this would mean ALL INCLUSIVE ,RIGHT ?THINGS WE RECEIVE (CAME ) FROM GOD,AND IT IS FOR GOD WE LIVE ,RIGHT ?YES

THEN HE GOES ON “BUT THERE IS ONE LORD ,JESUS CHRIST THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS CAME AND THROUGH WHOM WE LIVE”

question one;through ALL THINGS CAME ;witch are those things and ALL is this ALL inclusive ?

and through whom we live ' IS THIS ONLY RELATED TO THOSE WHO LIVE FROM CHRIST ON OR IS IT ALL INCLUSIVE ?

so this ALL THINGS does not stop here Paul keep talking about in his letter of Colossians

THIS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD UNTIL CHRIST CAME AND MAKE IT KNOWN TO HIS DISCIPLES THIS IS THE “SUPREMACY OF CHRIST”

Pierre

Pierre,

That is one of the best posts I've ever read here. Bravo!

September 30, 2011 at 1:03 am#259638

Participant

Mike

if I could write like you, you would see more ,I am glad you like my presentation,

September 30, 2011 at 1:52 am#259639

Blocked

Hi Kerwin,

You said to me:

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 29 2011,06:56)

It would not be an internally consistent teaching as Paul is teaching about righteousness and not about the creative aspect of God.

But then you said to Gene:

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 29 2011,09:44)

In a general sense Paul was teaching of the new creation in 1 Corinthians 8

What gives?

I have come to a place where I can't go further with you concerning John 1:3, Col 1:16, and 1 Cor 8:6. All of these scriptures say “ALL THINGS”, yet you just up and decide for yourself that “ALL” really means “NEW”; or it really only refers to “FOOD” or whatever. You have no SCRIPTURAL reason for this charade – only the preservation of your personal doctrine. There are many times in scripture where the “internally consistent teaching” doesn't have to do with the act of creation, yet it is mentioned within the teaching that God made all things. (Eccl 11:5, Is 44:24, Jer 10:16, Acts 4:24, Rev 4:11, etc.) So your claim that Paul COULDN'T HAVE BEEN referring to the act of creation in 1 Cor 8:6 is an unsupported claim. It is simply a PERSONAL WISH that you have in keeping with your PERSONAL DOCTRINE.

But let's try this one on for size:
Hebrews 1:2
in these last days He has spoken to us through His son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the ages.

Before I ask my question, consider also:
Hebrews 11:3
by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by the Word of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing;

The vast majority of English translations render the Greek word “aeons” as “worlds” or “universe” in both of these scriptures. NETBible, which uses “world”, explains:
Heb 1:2 tn
Grk “the ages.” The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb 11:3 for the same usage.

Kerwin, could you tell me what it means for the ages/worlds/universe to have been made through Jesus, also known as the Word of God?

September 30, 2011 at 2:00 am#259641

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 30 2011,10:10)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,20:26)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 30 2011,06:51)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2011,09:45)

kerwin

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT PAUL IS SAYING OPEN YOUR EYES AND HEART THEN ANSWER MIKE'S QUESTION, THANKS

Pierre

Pierre,

Do you perhaps believe the rest of the teaching about the eating of foods sacrificed to idols, of which that passage is one of many parts, doesn't exist?

I ask that since that teaching does not pertain to the creative aspect of God but rather to those things God reveals by his Spirit through his Son.

Just read it and see.

kerwin

in 1Cor 8;6

does Paul express himself to the things of food and other needs ?

or ALL THINGS ? this would mean ALL INCLUSIVE ,RIGHT ?THINGS WE RECEIVE (CAME ) FROM GOD,AND IT IS FOR GOD WE LIVE ,RIGHT ?YES

THEN HE GOES ON “BUT THERE IS ONE LORD ,JESUS CHRIST THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS CAME AND THROUGH WHOM WE LIVE”

question one;through ALL THINGS CAME ;witch are those things and ALL is this ALL inclusive ?

and through whom we live ' IS THIS ONLY RELATED TO THOSE WHO LIVE FROM CHRIST ON OR IS IT ALL INCLUSIVE ?

so this ALL THINGS does not stop here Paul keep talking about in his letter of Colossians

THIS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD UNTIL CHRIST CAME AND MAKE IT KNOWN TO HIS DISCIPLES THIS IS THE “SUPREMACY OF CHRIST”

Pierre

Pierre,

I am confident you know what Jesus means about “all things” in this passage.

Quote

John 14:26
New International Version (NIV)

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Do you agree with me that Paul is speaking of those same kind of things in the following passage.

Quote

1 Corinthians 8
New International Version (NIV)

In the next passage you will see the same type of things.

Quote

1 Corinthians 8
New International Version (NIV)

Even the knowledge mentioned in the following verse leading up to the passage being addressed it is the knowledge is the same type of thing spoken of in John 14:26.

1 Corinthians 8
New International Version (NIV)

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

Quote

Kerwin

I think I understand why you give me those scriptures ,

but let first establish some thing did Christ came for all men or only for the believers but not the others

I believe Christ came for all men ,believers or not ,so now if we go back to 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

let see in a close up ,what do we see ? first a distinction FOR US (this it is understood that only believers are imply,right ?yes)

Paul keep adding to it;ONE GOD from whom ALL THINGS came ,;what do you think ALL THINGS that comes from God are ? is Paul making a distinction of things ? NO ,so ALL means ALL like good ,salvation ,knowledge,food,help,understanding of is word of truth,and so on;;;;;

but if we receive salvation from God ,then we received it the way he has planed it ,right ? yes

and this would be the next thing Paul says ;there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

now if you go back to what I have said before with ,Col 1 and Prov 8, you have to understand what it says about Christ ,IF YOU DO NOT THEN ;CHRIST CANNOT ,COULD BE,COULD HAVE ,AND IS NOT THE CHRIST,

BECAUSE “ALL THINGS ARE NOT HIS, ,,,IF CHRIST LIVE BEGINS ONLY AT HIS BIRTH AS A MAN ,THEN HE IS JUST A MERE MAN AND CAN NOT SAVE ANYONE,

PAUL SAYS THAT CHRIST HAS SUPREMACY OF ALL THINGS (COL;1;18; so that IN everything(ALL THINGS) he might have the supremacy.)

SO ASSUME THAT YOU RIGHT IN BELIEVING THAT CHRIST LIFE ONLY BEGINS AT HIS BIRTH ,;;HOW CAN HE HAVE SUPREMACY? WHAT ABOUT CREATION ?IF HE WAS NOT THERE ,,DID Abraham NOT CAME FIRST THEN AND NOAH ,AND MOSES AND SO ON,,,,
YES THEY WOULD ,AND SO CHRIST COULD NOT RECEIVED SUPREMACY IN ALL THINGS,AND PAUL WOULD BE A LIAR.

AND JOHN ALSO WOULD BE A LIAR,because he say that Christ was in the beginning with God,
AND CHRIST ALSO would be a liar ;because HE SAID THAT HE CAME FROM ABOVE ,AND THAT HE IS THE SON OF GOD,

SO CHRIST IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD (THIS MEANS THE VERY FIRST CREATION OF GOD)

AND AS PROVERBS SAYING IN CHAP;8 HE WAS THERE WHEN ANYTHING ELSE WAS CREATED.THIS WAY CHRIST HAS SUPREMACY,AND ALL THINGS CAME THOUGH HIM,JUST LIKE PAUL SAY IT AND JOHN,AND CHRIST,

IF YOU WOULD HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERSTAND THIS LONG AGO,

THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTION CHRIST ASK HIS DISCIPLES; Mt 16:15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Mt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mt 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Pierre

September 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm#259671

Paladin

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2011,04:26)

[/quote]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,04:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2011,06:50)

Paladin,

Quote

You are correct, in that spirit is genitive. I've got to stop posting when I get tired.

The nominative neuter singular relative pronoun “o” replaces spirit which is genitive neuter singular, not sword which is accusative feminine singular.

It does not throw off my understanding of the verse because I was not even aware I was stating spirit to be nominative, because I was focusing at that time, on reema, which is nominative neuter singular.

Thank you for the correction.

You are welcome Paladin…I would want to be corrected also if I was in error about the Greek grammar. I believe the “o” refers to “rhema” and not sword or spirit. I believe the last phrase should be “the word WHICH is of God.” Both 'word' and 'which' is written in the nominative neuter singular. Spirit is not written in the nominative and does not qualify for the 'which' to refer to it.

I hear ya about posting when tired

Take care,
Kathi

You may be confusing the relative pronoun “o” with an adjective, which agrees with the word it modifies, in case, number, and gender.

With relative pronouns, however, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their function in the relative clause.

'o anthrwpos on…ginwskomen didaskei eemas
the man…..whom we know…..teaches us

In this example, the antecedent (anthrwpos) is nominative, the relative pronoun (on) is accusaive because it is the direct object of the verb ginwskomen. [See W.D.Mounce: “Basics…]

Back to Eph 6:17:
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

teen maxairan tou pneumatos o……estin reema theou
the sword…… of the Spirit,.. which is the word of God:

“Sword” is accusative feminine singular. Accusative as the direct object of the verb “take.”

“Spirit” is genitive neuter singular. Genitive as possessor of the sword.

“which” [o] is nominative neuter singular relative pronoun referencing the neuter singular Spirit, which becomes obvious when you eliminate the feminine sword, and locate the only other possibility, the neuter singular reema.

I also prefer to be corrected when I boo a boo. I would rather be correct, but in leiu of a boo, correction is better.

Thanks again.

Hi Paladin,
I am enjoying this challenge. Note taken on the agreement of the case on adjectives but not necessarily on pronouns. Thanks. However, regarding Eph 6:17 here is something to throw into the pot:

Agreement with Predicate Substantives27
Some of the exceptions to the rule of agreement show an agreement of a different kind; the relative clause is a copulative one with a predicate substantive, and the relative agrees in gender with the predicate substantive rather than with the antecedent in the main clause. An example is found in Eph 6:17: thn maxairan tou, pneuma-toj, o! estin rhma qeou, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The actual antecedent is maxairan (feminine), but the predicate substantive, which is of course referring to the same thing, is rhma (neuter), and the relative neuter agrees with it. In every instance the predicate substantive is more prominent than the actual antecedent.

27 Nine instances: Mark 7:11; 15:16, 42; Gal 3:16; Eph 6:17; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim
3:15; Rev 4:5; 5:8.

from here: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu….GTJ.pdf

Interesting, huh.

Kathi

Even more interesting, I find this:
Eph 6:17
and………..kai [cc
the………..teen (o`) [acc fem s def art]
helmet……..perikephalaian [acc fem s n]
-………….tou (o`) [dgns
of salvation..swteeriou [gen neu s pronominal adj]
take ye…….dexasthe [imperative aor mid 2nd pl]
and………..kai [cc
the………..teen (o`) [acc fem s def art]
sword………maxairan [acc fem s n]
of the……..tou (o`) [gen neu s def art]
spirit……..pneumatos [gen neu s n]
which………o (os) nom neu s rel pronoun]
is…………estin (eimi)[ind pres act 3rd s v]
word……….reema [nom neut s n]
of God……..theou [gen masc s n]

IT'S STILL GREEK TO ME: DAVID ALLAN BLACK [page 70-71]

Quote

The relative pronoun (os,ee,o)– follows the declension of the definite article. It must agree with its antecedent in gender and number, but its case is determined by its function in its own sentence.[Emphasis mine[P]

Occasionally the relative agrees, not with the grammatical gender of its antecedent, but with its natural gender: paidarion [neuter]….. os[masculine] exei, “a small boy who has” (John 6:9). In I Corinthians 15:10, eimi o eimi, I am what I am,” is not a grammatical blooper. By referring to himself with the neuter pronoun, Paul wants to bring out a qualitative force. “Eimi os eimi,” “I am who I am,” would have given quite a different twist to Paul's thought.

[Emphasis mine[P]

These eleven verses have an agreeing antecedent
01) Acts 1:12 [o estin] modifies “mount” which is near Jerusalem
02) Eph 1:14 [o estin] modifies “Holy Spirit” of verse 13
03) Eph 6:17 [o estin] modifies “Spirit”
04) Col 1:24 [o estin] modifies “his body” the church
05) Col 1:27 [o estin] modifies “Mystery” Christ in you
06) II Tim 1:6 [o estin] modifies “Xarisma” gift in thee
07) I Pet 3:4 [o estin] modifies “meek and quiet spirit”
08) Rev 2:7 [o estin] modifies “tree” in the paradise of God
09) Rev 20:12 [o estin] modifies “book” of life
10) Rev 21:8 [o estin] modifies “fire and brimstone”
11) Rev 21:17 [o estin] modifies “measure”

These five verses reference “o estin” as a relative pronoun without referencing an agreeing antecedent.
01) Mark 3:17 [o estin] modifies plural “names” “sons of thunder”
02) Eph 5:5 [o estin] mdofies an idolater
03) Col 3:14 [o estin] modifies “charity” bond of perfectness
04) II Thes 3:17 [o estin] modifies “salutation” – in every epistle
05) I John 2:8 [o estin] modifies “commandment”

Quote

The relative pronoun is involved in a few idioms: aph ou means “since;” os an means “whoever;” and *”o estin” can introduce an interpretation: “that is.”

The operative word here is “can” as in “can introduce” – not “must” as your remark seems to allow.

These seven verses reference “being interpreted” (or translated), preceeded by [o estin].
01) Matt 1:23 [o estin] being interpreted
02) Mark 5:41 [o estin] being interpreted
03) Mark 15:22 [o estin] being interpreted
04) Mark 15:34 [o estin] being interpreted
05) John 1:41 [o estin] being translated
06) Acts 4:36 [o estin] being translated
07) Heb 7:1-2 [1[prwton men ermeeneuomenos]first being interpreted [2[o estin] king of peace

These six verses are used with synonyms of “interpreted or translated”
01) Matt 27:33 [o estin] “that is to say”
02) Mark 7:11 [o estin followed by [o] “that is to say” a gift
[Korban o estin Dwron o ean ex emou wpheleethees]
03) Mark 7:34 [o estin] Ephphatha “that is to say” be thou opened
04) Mark 12:42 [o estin] two mites, “which make” a farthing
05) Mark 15:16 [o estin] the hall, “called” Praetorium;
06) Mark 15:42 [o estin] “that is” the day before the sabbath

Five verses “translated/interpreted” without [o estin]
01) John 1:38 [o legetai] being interpreted “master”
02) John 1:42 [o ermeeneuetai] which is translated
03) John 9:7 [o ermeeneuetai] which is translated
04) Acts 9:36 [ee diermeeneuomenee] which by interpretation
05) Acts 13:6-8 [methermeeneuetai] for so is translated

W.D.Mounce; Basics of Biblical Greek – page 116
A Relative Clause is the relative pronoun and the clause it introduced; And can be the subject (“Whoever is with me is not against me.”); Direct Object (“I eat what is placed before me”); Object of a preposition (“Give the bible to whoever asks for it.”); and must be viewed as a unit.

page 118
Relative Clauses are always dependent; they may never contain the main subject and verb of the sentence.

A.T.Robertson; A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament

Quote

page 410
Fluctuation in Gender
In Rev 14:19 two genders are found with the same word; leenon.
[leenon accusative feminine singular]
[leenon accusative masculine singular]

Also the common gender of “Theon”
John 1:1 theon = accusative masculine singular]
Acts 19:37 theon = accusative feminine singular]

page 411-412
EXPLANATORY o estin & tout estin

A special idiom is the relative (o) as an explanation (o estin) and the demonstrative (tout esti) which are both used without much regard to the gender (not to say number) of antecedent or predicate.

Thus…in Eph 6:17 “…maxairan, o estin reema theou.” Blass observes [Gr. of N.T. Gk. p.77] that it is only in the apocalypse that this explanatory relative is assimilated to the antecedent or predicate.

The problem with that is the fact that the Greek is not correctly presented in A.T.Robertson's explanation; Eph 6:17 “…maxairan, o estin reema theou” but Paul gives us “kai teen maxairan tou pneumatos o estin reema theou.”

This has got to be based upon the presupposition that “which” modifies “sword” and not “spirit.” It follows the same attitude as that of Colwell and Sharp who make up their own rules where the Greek doesn't suit them. Also the
“historical present” which is a made up assessment which covers several different tenses other than the “present.” And if the tense is already identified as “present” why is it then labelled “historical present?” [See ATR pp 866-869]

ATR also fails to consider the fact, all the “exceptions” deal with those incidents which have no antecedent in agreement with the Relative Pronouns. Eph 6:17 has an antecedent that is in agreement with the neuter singular “o” estin, pneumatos (Neut singular), which once it is found, why is ATR still looking for a match? Because he is trying desparately to make sense out of things he does not understand, and eventually must make a ruling to control the grammar of the language.

Most of the “Greek grammar” would be unrecognized if the grammarians would read the scriptures in the order in which they were produced by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Much of the grammatical explanation is demonstrably an effort to explain things in light of certain dictionary meanings that are changed by the location of words in the wrong order. Like when Paul explains how terminology is applied to the Greek among early Christians, later addressed by John in his gospel.

Instead, John's goepel preceeds every one of Paul's writings, and concept represented by the term “the logos of God” is destroyed in the resulting theology, based upon the destruction of the grammatical principles upon which God based his scriptures.

For example, John 1:1a,c; 14 “In the beginning was the logos,
…and the logos was God, and the logos became flesh…” Why do the grammarians fail to point out the natural consequences of “ho logos” and theos being inconvertible terms; i.e., when
“ho logos” became flesh, theos did not.

For example, when explaining “and the logos was with God” – the theologians claim “pros ton theon” demonstrates a close intimate personal relationship between the logos and God. They go into an explanation of “pros ton theon” that has no justification if the inspired order is followed, in applying terminology to theology as the Holy spirit inspired it to be written.

“pros ton theon” is used to describe a man approaching a gate; a man being approached by a donkey, and several other incidents which show the language to be rather silly. Yet they apply it to John 1:1b as though they somehow have special insight into the mind of God as he instructs men.

Their real insight is clouded by their own evaluation of their influence based on truth. It is lacking due to theology not based in grammatical principles, but based upon political principles. The result becomes “trinitarian orthodoxy” and “pre-existant Jesus orthodoxy.”

If you understand Eph 6:17 to be saying “the spirit is the reema of God,” you have a different understanding than that of “the sword” is the reema of God, and belongs to the spirit.
They cannot both be true.

And yes, I also find the exchange interesting. However, I cannot continue to try to do in depth research over an extended time period, as I am still recovering from radiation and other side issues from Cancer. That is why it has taken me so long to produce this little report. I cannot sit at my computer for very long at a time, but must waste my time putting my feet up on a lounger to stop blood clots from forming in my feet and legs.

I feel I owe the board this explanation, so these posting will not feel like I am favoring one over another. Thank you for your patience.

September 30, 2011 at 2:54 pm#259673

Paladin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,09:42)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,01:42)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:29)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,06:33)

When I quote John 1:1 telling us “the logos was God;” then offer another verse that tells us “the spirit, which is the reema of God,” and then give you my conclusion that the logos was God and the reema is the Holy Spirit, what is your complaint about my “not real” evidence?

Well,

John 1:1 doesn't say the logos was “THE God”, with a capital “G”.

And I don't know of a scripture that refers to God's Spirit as “rhema”.

So maybe “real” is not the word I should have used. I should have said you are making this “logos” versus “”rhema” claim without any ACCURATE evidence.

Nope! You should have said “you are making this “logos”versus
“rhema” claim without any evidence according to Mike.”

Really Paladin? You can't figure out from my name and avatar on the post that the statements therein are “according to Mike”?

I can readily see what confuses you Mike. The issue I raised was over your statement –

Quote

So maybe “real” is not the word I should have used. I should have said you are making this “logos” versus “”rhema” claim without any ACCURATE evidence.

It really has nothing to do with the identity of the one posting. it has to do with the accuracy of the statement I called into question.

Quote

How about instead of worrying about how I word my sentences, you just address the scriptures I've given you that show both “logos” and “rhema” are used to refer to just plain old WORDS?

I don't deal with “facts according to Mike,” I deal with what the Holy Spirit instructs through his logos and his reema.

I will tell you again Mike, and as often as you ned me to repeat it, logos deals with concepts, and reema deals with records. When God asks if you understand his logos, he is asking if you comprehend the concept behind the reema, the written account. When he asks if you have read his reema, he expects you to understand it is a question about the scripture account, the written word. While your observation is true, both Greeks terms reference some of the same words, it is because some of the same words are used in the logos, the concept behind the reema, and some of them are also used in the reema, the written account. That does not mean logos and reema mean the same thing, it means both logos and reema have been applied by inspiration of the Holy spirit, to the same terminology.

Quote

I don't mind that you make up your own “secret meaning” of those two words at will. I mind that you claim there is EVIDENCE to support those “secret meanings”.

Take it up with the Holy spirit. And while you are doing that, please explain to him wha you mean by your accusation –

Quote

you make up your own “secret meaning” of those two words at will

Quote

The FACT of the matter is that sometimes “rhema” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person. And sometimes “logos” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person.

Claims without examples.

Quote

Now if YOU want to read secret messages into some of the times those words are used, I can't stop you. Just don't claim it as FACT, when it is merely your OPINION. Fair enough?

So what are you suggesting? I post the words I want to use in my next post, and you tell me if they are factual or opinion, then I arrange the words to suit your satisfaction?

Give me a moment here!!!

Nah!!

September 30, 2011 at 3:08 pm#259675

Paladin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,10:10)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

You seem to think that a root can only be on one side of the tree, that of begetting the tree, but that is not so. Scripture tells us of a root that dried up, and could bear no fruit “from the tree.”

That makes perfect sense. If the root dries up, the things that FOLLOW cannot be. The fruit FOLLOWS the root. Root FIRST, fruit LATER.

When the sower went forth to sow, did he plant seeds or roots. Mike?

Did the seed take root?

Or did the root take seed?

Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; 4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: 5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: 8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Can you tell from the following, or should I explain it to you? Is the sower planting seed? or roots? Does the seed take root?
Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

What do you understand to be the relationship between the seed, the root, the plant, the fruit, the leaves, the branches, the shade and the comfort?

My understanding:
The sower plants seeds. The seeds grow, depending upon the condition of the ground into which it is planted, some of it may have opportunity to expand and progress to the fruitbearing stage, putting down roots by which it attains nourishment and moisture from the soil. it developes leaves on branches, which provides shade for the sower in his leisure time, before he can harvest the as yet unripened fruit. He gives thanks to God for the comfort provided by his labors in the garden sheltered by the grace of God.

And everything flourishes.

September 30, 2011 at 7:49 pm#259680

Lightenup

Participant

Paladin,
Thank you for your lengthy and in depth response. I will have to look at it more closely when I am in the mood for all that technical grammar info.

I'm sorry that you have cancer and have to endure all the radiation. May God give you strength and walk with you through your battles.

Kathi

October 1, 2011 at 2:34 am#259695