Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your choice, but that is why you will always be limited in your research.
All the verses above denote ownership of the subject. Your research is very elementary. You choose the version to support your paradigm and that is fine, it shows your limitation in your studies of the Word of God. διά - means one thing and one thing only, coming from the direction of the subject, whether it be through, by, in, of...it comes from within the subject in question. If you want something just to pass through an object or person from another source, the writer would have rightfully used the proper word in doing so - like - διέρχομαι for example, but instead he is using ownership of the subject with διά. When are you ever going to learn how to divide the Word of God rightly? You split hairs where there are no hairs to split. You argue a premise that doesn't exist. You are wrong Kat, admit it...you are way out of your league when it comes to linguistics, and it shows more so the deeper you fall into the rabbit's hole as you try to prove your case that has zero foundation. You are simply wrong. The text is screaming at you, but you choose to keep the blinders on...your choice.
Take a greek class, or just simply refrain from arguing with me and sit down in your student chair and listen up. Good grief.
This has been bugging me... why didn't you respond to my post in the "If you don't believe God is going to save all mankind" thread? I hope you will get to it soon. As I am the student I am eager to hear/read what you have to say in response.
It is funny because you and I agree totally (as far as I know) about eschatology but in Jesus' deity and Universalism we do not. I am curious to find out what else I can learn from you.
Our modern English prefix dia is from the Greek dia. dia- - definition of dia- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
The prefix dia is defined as 1. through, throughout, or during diachronic 2. across diactinic 3. apart diacritic 4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) at right angles diatropism 5. in opposite or different directions diamagnetism[from Greek dia through, between, across, by]
Now in my literary ignorance, I would say, as a student, that this "by" is not what you think it is. Perhaps you are thinking that "by" is equal to the phrase "has been done by" which is what I would call showing ownership.
This dia (the prefix) means through, across, apart, at right angles, in opposite or different directions. The Greek means through, between, across, by.
Now thefreedictionary.com is not the ultimate authority on Greek but I think it is clear that perhaps it is your understanding of the word "by" that is in error here. These are all non-ownership meanings except your version of "by."
You seem to be saying that the world was created "by" him as in made by him. I am saying that is misleading because the word means through, between, and across which all mean a movement or action but ownership points elsewhere (to God).
I just got off work, and I will respond to you sometime tomorrow as I am on a day's vacation at home with the newborn...I will have more time then. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
Your choice, but that is why you will always be limited in your research.
All the verses above denote ownership of the subject. Your research is very elementary. You choose the version to support your paradigm and that is fine, it shows your limitation in your studies of the Word of God. διά - means one thing and one thing only, coming from the direction of the subject, whether it be through, by, in, of...it comes from within the subject in question. If you want something just to pass through an object or person from another source, the writer would have rightfully used the proper word in doing so - like - διέρχομαι for example, but instead he is using ownership of the subject with διά. When are you ever going to learn how to divide the Word of God rightly? You split hairs where there are no hairs to split. You argue a premise that doesn't exist. You are wrong Kat, admit it...you are way out of your league when it comes to linguistics, and it shows more so the deeper you fall into the rabbit's hole as you try to prove your case that has zero foundation. You are simply wrong. The text is screaming at you, but you choose to keep the blinders on...your choice.
Take a greek class, or just simply refrain from arguing with me and sit down in your student chair and listen up. Good grief.
Ouch LOL, wow, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I agree with ya. Oooops, that is why I don't even bother with this forum anymore, a waist of my time. But hey, you are right on. I come here now and then to check my messages but don't really look for any debate anymore, as you see people don't really educated themselves enough now days about the hebrew or greek language to really debate a case. Anyway, later.
It is funny because you and I agree totally (as far as I know) about eschatology but in Jesus' deity and Universalism we do not. I am curious to find out what else I can learn from you.
Kat, you and I don't agree with eschatology at all. You believe that God "is" going to be all in all, I say, that He already has completed that work.
Let me expand on 1 Corinthians 15:20-28:
In denying the resurrection of the pre-Christian saints, or of the old covenant Israel, the resurrection of the dead deniers were denying not the fact of the resurrection, but the "all-ness" of the resurrection and and the "all-ness" of Christ's atoning work. They denied that Christ died for "all", and therefore they denied that "all" would be raised. Though they agreed with Paul that Christ had died for "our" - the eschatological church's sins - 1 Corinthians 15:3,11, they denied that Christ had died for the sins of "the dead".
Contrary to their doctrine, the resurrection of Christ was not the beginning of the resurrection of the last days church only. It was also the beginning of the resurrection of the great cloud of saints, the "dead" and "them that slept", who had come and gone before the advent of the last days church. Christ became the "first fruits" of the eschatological church and the Hadean saints "out from among" whom He had been raised - 1 Cor 15:55; Rev 1:5.
His resurrection was the beginning of the resurrection of "all" the saints who were dead "in ADAM" - 1 Cor 15:20, not merely of the eschatological church. As all the saints, Christian and Pre-Christian, had been condemned and alienated from God - ie. had DIED, in Adam through sin - Gen 2:17; Rom 7:9, so "all" were going to be raised up in "the Christ", the second "Man" the savior of "the World" - 1 Cor 15:21-22.
Because Christians were "of Christ", and because Christ was the "First Fruit" of the resurrection -1 Cor 15:23, Christians were, in Him, "first fruits" of the "first fruits". The resurrection of Christians "in His Paruosia", therefore, was not to be the consummation of the life giving reign of Christ - 1 Cor 15:22-24 - as the resurrection of the dead deniers supposed. the eschatological church's resurrection in "Christ the First Fruits" was instead the beginning of the end of the resurrection harvest, and was to be followed by "the end", or "consummation", which was the resurrection of the dead...ie, the death of Death (the abolition of the alienation of God's people form Him)- when "all" the elect became the habitation of the life-giving Spirit through the gospel - John 5:25;1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev 20:5-6.
Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was not reigning in the Spirit-indwelt, eschatological church merely so tha the church by itself would attain unto the resurrection and inherit the kingdom. he was reigning in the church sop that the historic kingdom would, IN HIM, be "universalized" in and brought under the rule od "the God and Father" of "all" the saints - 1 Cor 15:24. The Adamic saints were not going to be left unredeemed from the "rule", "authority", and "power" of Satan, Sin, Death, and Condemnation. Rather, the Father was going to place all those kingdom-enemies under the feet of Christ, and Christ was going to "abolish" or "annul" them all.
He was already in process of abolishing the last and greatest kingdom-enemy, Death itself, through the kingdom-transforming, kingdom-universalizing, work of the Cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit - 1 Cor 15:26
"all things", or literally "the all things", the cosmic body of Sin and Death, were going to be subjected to Christ, and changed - Phil 3:21 - in the Father, by the power of the Father, and under the authority of the Father, so that all the enemies would be done away with; so that all of the Father's elect, from Adam to AD 70, would be made alive in Christ; so tha the universal church would become the habitation of the triune God, so that He would become "all things in all" - 1 Cor 15:28, or "he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God" - Rev 21:3
This prophetic word spoken by the prophets and apostles has been completed, and from AD 70 onward, no prophecy or prophetic word after that, is not from God himself, but only from the imaginations of men.
Last edited by sciotamicks; 12-19-2009 at 05:21 PM..
Reason: some typos
Kat, you and I don't agree with eschatology at all. You believe that God "is" going to be all in all, I say, that He already has completed that work.
I am a full preterist sciotamicks... LOL that is what I meant. We agree.
I don't agree with you on whether Jesus is God, Universal salvation, and I am curious to find out what else.
Hopefully that information did help someone though. Well thought out.
It is funny because when it is eschatology and we agree then I am a spectacular linguist, but when you disagree with me then I am terrible at it.
I guess from your point of view, you will never believe that Jesus is not God and all will be saved, but that doesn't make you less intelligent to me. Everything in in it's own time.
It is funny because when it is eschatology and we agree then I am a spectacular linguist, but when you disagree with me then I am terrible at it.
LOL..yeah..when you agree with ME, then you are smart,educated,know your bible, a true christian, a truly wondeful person.
But when you disagree with ME,then you don`t know anything, never study the greek,don`t what your talking about, don`t have the spirit of God,are going to burn in hell, aren`t educated, aren`t quickened by the spirit,etc. LOL
I am a full preterist sciotamicks... LOL that is what I meant. We agree.
I don't agree with you on whether Jesus is God, Universal salvation, and I am curious to find out what else.
Hopefully that information did help someone though. Well thought out.
It is funny because when it is eschatology and we agree then I am a spectacular linguist, but when you disagree with me then I am terrible at it.
I guess from your point of view, you will never believe that Jesus is not God and all will be saved, but that doesn't make you less intelligent to me. Everything in in it's own time.
Kat,
When did I say you were a spectacular linguist in regards to Preterism?
I only said your understanding of it is spectacular, especially in regards to the AC..at least that is what I remember. This has nothing to do with linguistics, but only characteristics of the subjects in question.
Kat,
When did I say you were a spectacular linguist in regards to Preterism?
I only said your understanding of it is spectacular, especially in regards to the AC..at least that is what I remember. This has nothing to do with linguistics, but only characteristics of the subjects in question.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
Don't take this too personally, sciota . . . but this is an embarrassing nitpick for you (or it should be).
Don't take this too personally, sciota . . . but this is an embarrassing nitpick for you (or it should be).
All good Mystic...I don't take things too personally from human beings. What I do take personally is the defilement of my Lord and Savior, God in the flesh, Jesus Christ.
All good Mystic...I don't take things too personally from human beings. What I do take personally is the defilement of my Lord and Savior, God in the flesh, Jesus Christ.
It's ok. Men have been deifying other men since Nimrod. Nothing new under the sun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
