And Jesus said he was not a spirit because after his resurrection said that his body was flesh and was bones. But you are saying he is a spirit .
I gave grammatical reasons and also lexical reasons that you have not addressed.He did with 1 Tim 2:5- there is one God and One Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
He agreed the one God and mediator are present and denied his humanity is present . That verse make God, mediator and man all present , not past. That is reading ones theology into the passage just like Seth proton has been doing in this thread .
Agreed.Flesh and bones are physical not spiritual which he denied and they touched his him and one disciple put his hand into Jesus side at his request .
Just so you are aware, Roger doesn't actually know Greek. You shouldn't put much stock in what he says unless he is directly quoting a reference work.I already said I cannot debate with you at your level of knowledge but that does not make you right and me wrong either .
And despite his inevitable protestations, it does mean he knows nothing about it.I don't claim to "know" Greek. That does not prevent me from learning it here, does it? And that does not mean I know nothing about Greek.
I am Orthodox Oneness.I’m not Mormon are you a Unitarian ?
Jesus is not an angel they are spirits and he said he was not a spirit. Hebrews makes the distinction between angels and Jesus they are completely different beings .
I disagree. The clause is a single thought, and the verb, implicit as it is, is applied to the whole of the clause/thought, including Jesus being arthropos.The present tense refers to his role as mediator, not his identification with humanity. Verse 6 is he gave himself with the aorist participle as a human. It's not present tense.
I made a two part argument. BDAG has this gloss on 1 Ti 2:5:
Of course you can find commentaries that agree with you. They quote "himself man."Expositors Greek NT.
ἄνθρωπος explains how Christ Jesus could be a mediator. He can only be an adequate mediator whose sympathy with, and understanding of, both parties is cognisable by, and patent to, both. Now, although God’s love for man is boundless, yet without the revelation of it by Christ it would not be certainly patent to man; not to add that one of two contending parties cannot be the mediator of the differences (Galatians 3:20). See also Romans 5:15. Again, we must note that ἄνθρωπος (himself man, R.V., not the man, A.V.) in this emphatic position suggests that the verity of our Lord’s manhood was in danger of being ignored or forgotten.
If he is not a man neither is he a mediator .
Really?? Thanks; is he just using Lexicons?Just so you are aware, Roger doesn't actually know Greek. You shouldn't put much stock in what he says unless he is directly quoting a reference work.
And despite his inevitable protestations, it does mean he knows nothing about it.
Here is Wallace on the definition of a clause.
Clauses are units of thought forming part of a compound or complex sentence. Each clause normally contains a subject and predicate or a nonfinite verbal form (i.e., either an infinitive or participle).
A compound sentence is one in which two or more clauses are connected in a
coordinate relation, known as paratactic structure. (ExSyn 656–57)
Well, he gave his exegesis of the Greek and defines the clause as if he knew what it was but is wrong. I quoted Wallace and corrected him.Why is that an example of someone quoting himself?