Election

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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 .

Words don't have a single point of meaning, they have a range of meaning. Danker's Concise Greek lexicon says of this use of πνεῦμα:

—γ. of a being in disembodied state, spirit, apparition, ghost Lk 24:37, 39.

Jesus said he was not an apparition, not that he was resurrected with his fleshy body. Paul does not contradict him in 1 Cor 15 where he says with great theological precision that Jesus' was resurrected in a body not composed of dust, not a physical body.

I have harmonized the passages, or I should say Fred Danker and BDAG have.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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 .
I gave grammatical reasons and also lexical reasons that you have not addressed.

Just say'n
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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 .
Agreed.

But that does not prove Jesus was resurrected with flesh and bone. That sounds like a Mormon doctrine... no blood in the resurrection body. Are you LDS?

The problem is that there was a period of time between the resurrection and this event and Jesus is not teaching about the resurrection like Paul was. You are simply proof texting and not harmonizing scripture.

We know that angels don't have flesh in heaven but they do when they need to appear to men. They even eat food. (Hebrews 13:2).

But you don't claim angels have flesh do you?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I already said I cannot debate with you at your level of knowledge but that does not make you right and me wrong either .
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 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.
And despite his inevitable protestations, it does mean he knows nothing about it.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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 am Orthodox Oneness.

And you are still not dealing with the lexicons I quoted or harmonizing the passages.

Why not do that before you try to jump onto another passage?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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.


Doug
I made a two part argument. BDAG has this gloss on 1 Ti 2:5:

BDAG on this verse says "d. Jesus Christ is called α. as one who identifies with humanity."

Note it does not say he is human.

Now to the Greek:

1Timothy 2:6 starts with the relative pronoun 'who' (ὁ). It introduces a relative clause, 'who gave himself a ransom for all'. The relative clause modifies, describes or restricts it's antecedent with the force of an adjective.

The antecedent is the 'a man' from verse 5. The antecedent is NOT 'God', or 'mediator'. When the antecedent does not have the verb, but it is found in the relative clause, it is as if the verb also applies to the antecedent. The fact that Jesus Christ is STILL the mediator and that the Father, God is STILL the 'one God' of Christian monotheism does NOT mean that Jesus is still a man. For that we would need something like : Άνθρωπος έστιν Ιησούς Χριστός ὁ δους εαυτόν ..." or "Jesus Christ is a man who gave himself ...".
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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 .
Of course you can find commentaries that agree with you. They quote "himself man."

There is no "himself" in the text and I saw no manuscript evidence for it.

(NA28) 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,
6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων,
⸂τὸ μαρτύριον⸃ καιροῖς ἰδίοις ⸆ .

They assert an argument based on theology and don't give any evidence. That's great if you are preaching to the choir. Not so good for apologetics.

I will also note it falls short of saying he is currently a man.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
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.
Really?? Thanks; is he just using Lexicons?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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.


Doug
Here is Wallace on the definition of a clause.

Definition
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)

Note the ESV:
1 Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all,

This is a paratactic structure.
"For there is one God" is a clause.

"there is one mediator between God and men" is a clause.

You said:
the verb, implicit as it is, is applied to the whole of the clause/thought

You don't understand what a clause is.

"the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all" has its own aorist verb that is rendered into past tense in English. If there were one verb for everything up to this point that would be it. But each clause has its own verb and "there was one God" is ridiculous.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Why is that an example of someone quoting himself?
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.

His error was necessary to make his point that it is all one clause with the same single verb.

That's absolutely incorrect.
 
Top