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.
To claim that the term "all things" in the first clause refers to a synecdochic semantic tradition would be insufficient premise, even if it was true.
Not true at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
This is because:
(1) In the second clause of John 1:3, the ontic set is buried in the proposition of the text, not stated explicitly.
Translation: "and without him was not anything that was made."
Proposition: "Nothing was created without him."
Contraposition: "All created things were made by him."
Absolutely and completely irrelevant. This has no bearing whatsoever on what "all things" refers to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
(2) We are now specifying a different ontic set: "all created things" rather than just "all things", with different implications.
But the "created" universe is part of that same semantic background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
To see what I mean by this, look at how John 1:3 would read without contraposition of the second clause:
"All things were made by him; and all created things were made by him."
The first clause implies that the Father is the same being as the Logos, because it is impossible for the Father to be among the set of "all things".
Not at all. You're trying to hard to find evidence for your eisegesis in the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
The second clause implies that the Father is the same being as the Logos, because it is impossible for the Logos to be among the set of "all created things". You need to adapt your argument to challenge both clauses at once.
No, you need to stop pretending this dilattentish eisegesis means anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
There's no semantic shift. We can apply the rendering of "pre-eminent" or "first in rank" to this title as well, indicating Christ's dominion over death. Surely you don't mean to imply that it means he was first to be raised (born) from the dead?
Yes, that's precisely what it means. He was the first to be resurrected (different from resuscitated). It cannot mean "over death." It means "firstborn of the dead." It's a partitive genitive in reference the group of people who are dead. The Greek is ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. "Who is the first, the firstborn, of the dead." You can make no argument whatsoever for preferring your reading of πρωτότοκος. You can only assert it has to be the reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
I can only access the full text of the third and fourth links. As far as I can tell, the third link discusses agency in the context of semiotic mediation. The fourth in terms of basic action theory and intentional states. Neither of them seem to describe the concept of agency the way you do, as a series of identities linked in causal priority.
No, that's not how I'm describing the concept of agency. You don't seem to be understanding much of what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
This is off-topic, though interesting. Maybe we should move this part of the discussion to IMs?
Sorry, but I don't really have time to be multiplying my discussions on here.
Can the Formal Doctrine of the Trinity Be Proven By the Bible?
If "proven by the Bible" is to be understood as "taught in the Bible" ... then yes.
But those who reject do so even when it is shown that is taught, so why bother with a doctrine that's beyond human reasoning .... which is what "prove" you people are seeking.
Can the Formal Doctrine of the Trinity Be Proven By the Bible?
If "proven by the Bible" is to be understood as "taught in the Bible" ... then yes.
But those who reject do so even when it is shown that is taught, so why bother with a doctrine that's beyond human reasoning .... which is what "prove" you people are seeking.
Where is it TAUGHT?
Not a single verse discussing something else, but actually "taught" as we are taught Jesus is the messiah, forgiveness of sins through Jesus, etc?
If Son is the Supreme God, then He would have no God above Him. The Holy Spirit and Jesus both come from the Father who is the source of all things. If the Father is the source, everyone else is dependent on Him. Jesus Himself says that the Father is the Only True God.
1 Cor. 8
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father,from whom are all things and we exist for Him; andone Lord, Jesus Christ, by/through whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Romans 1 "We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you." (vs. 3)
John 17
These things spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to the heaven, and said -- `Father, the hour hath come, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee,
2 according as Thou didst give to him authority over all flesh, that -- all that Thou hast given to him -- he may give to them life age-during;
and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send -- Jesus Christ. (Young's Literal)
The Son is called God because He represents Him and acts on His behalf but there is only One True God and that is the Son's Father.
These examples clearly show a Godhead of three. Where are the verses describing all three as a single substance?
ONE GOD (SINGULAR)
Deuteronomy 4:35
“You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.”
1 Kings 8:16
“so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other”....
also found in:
Isaiah 44:8
Isaiah 45:5, 6, 14, 18
Isaiah 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other
Isaiah 46:9
Joel 2:27
Mark 12:32
These are revealed in the "SINGULAR" ... which means for the Father to be a Deity, the Son to be a Deity and the Holy Ghost to be a Deity and NOT be one substance, then you've got something other than ONE GOD.
Deuteronomy 4:35
“You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.”
1 Kings 8:16
“so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other”....
also found in:
Isaiah 44:8
Isaiah 45:5, 6, 14, 18
Isaiah 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other
Isaiah 46:9
Joel 2:27
Mark 12:32
These are revealed in the "SINGULAR" ... which means for the Father to be a Deity, the Son to be a Deity and the Holy Ghost to be a Deity and NOT be one substance, then you've got something other than ONE GOD.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. And this time in the "PLURAL."
My point is that one Godhead is one God. We can address or refer to any of the three (Father, Son or Holy Ghost) as "God." And they are "one." They are also "three." They are one in one respect and three in another respect. But you still have the problem of their "substance" not being described anywhere in the Bible.
Clearly you think that a corporeal substance and a non-corporeal substance can both exist in a single being simultaneously. To me, the fact that at Jesus' baptism, the Father (whom you believe to be non-corporeal) spoke from Heaven, describing His Son, Jesus Christ (who was unquestionably corporeal and in the water, having just been baptized), makes the idea that they are "one substance" absolutely impossible. Can a substance be both living and dead at the same time? If not, then the Father must have died at the moment the Son did. Can a substance that is already everywhere at once really "go" somewhere else? Why would the resurrected Christ have said He was going to "go" to His Father in Heaven? If He was truly part of the same substance as His Father, it would have been unnecessary for Him to go anywhere since He'd have already been there.
Of course they can both (or "all," if we include the Holy Ghost) have exactly the same divine attributes and divine qualities, which would make them "one God" without them being a single substance. None of the passages you've used has anything remotely to do with their substance.
If I am misunderstanding what you mean by the word "substance," please tell me how you would define the word. To me, a substance is what something is made of.
Absolutely and completely irrelevant. This has no bearing whatsoever on what "all things" refers to.
But the "created" universe is part of that same semantic background.
Not at all. You're trying to hard to find evidence for your eisegesis in the text.
No, you need to stop pretending this dilattentish eisegesis means anything.
Helpfully, you've given two good reasons why your argument is wrong.
Any speculation that "all things" refers to some vague synecdoche, or other figure of speech, is defeated by the presence of an ontologically identical referent conceptually encoded within the proposition.
Quote:
Yes, that's precisely what it means. He was the first to be resurrected (different from resuscitated). It cannot mean "over death." It means "firstborn of the dead." It's a partitive genitive in reference the group of people who are dead. The Greek is ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. "Who is the first, the firstborn, of the dead." You can make no argument whatsoever for preferring your reading of πρωτότοκος. You can only assert it has to be the reading.
Partitioning "resurrection" from "resuscitation" still demands no semantic shift in prototokos.
In this case, he is "first in time" among the set of dead persons to be granted a glorified, resurrection body, ergo "pre-eminent" among the dead. This still respects both accepted renderings of prototokos.
If you disagree that this also implies dominion over death itself, that's no big deal. The important point is that no rendering of prototokos refers to the concept of birth or rebirth. It signifies rank or chronological order.
Quote:
No, that's not how I'm describing the concept of agency. You don't seem to be understanding much of what I'm saying.
I only have the examples you've provided so far to go by. Among them:
(1) God the Father, through the Logos, creating the heavens and the earth.
(2) You, through McArthur homes, building your home.
(3) You, through your hiring manager, employing a new sales rep.
In every case, there is a chain of discrete identities in causal interrelationship. By "agency", you seem to refer to those identities further down the chain of priority assuming the identity of those that are causally prior.
If this is inaccurate, do you mind elaborating on what you mean?
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.
