Election

[Roger Thornhill]

So I’m guessing you are never wrong is that correct ?

If someone like Wallace were to post here and prove your Greek was wrong would you accept his correction ?

I have already done that several times in the languages forum. I love to learn and am willing to admit it when I am proven wrong.

 

[ReverendRV]

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.

But he didn't quote himself. And I can't judge which one of you is correct; but I can say he has earned my trust ..

 

[John Milton]

Really?? Thanks; is he just using Lexicons?

Really. He mainly quotes reference works (lexicons, grammars, etc). Sometimes he represents them accurately, but he misapplies/misunderstands what he reads quite often as well. You should always look up his references if you can.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

But he didn't quote himself. And I can't judge which one of you is correct; but I can say he has earned my trust ..

So you don't understand Wallace's grammar on the definition of a clause? It's in English.

 

[ReverendRV]

Really. He mainly quotes reference works (lexicons, grammars, etc). Sometimes he represents them accurately, but he misapplies/misunderstands what he reads quite often as well. You should always look up his references if you can.

Thanks. I probably should start learning to do that, all I usually do is look at Concordances...

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Really. He mainly quotes reference works (lexicons, grammars, etc). Sometimes he represents them accurately, but he misapplies/misunderstands what he reads quite often as well. You should always look up his references if you can.

And can you point out where I have done that today?

 

[ReverendRV]

So you don't understand Wallace's grammar on the definition of a clause? It's in English.

I've never read from that...

 

[TibiasDad]

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 ...".

The antecedent is the person Jesus Christ, who is man, not the human-ness of his form. The body does not give himself, the will does, the person. Besides, to identify with humanity is to say you are human.


Doug

 

[ReverendRV]

Really. He mainly quotes reference works (lexicons, grammars, etc). Sometimes he represents them accurately, but he misapplies/misunderstands what he reads quite often as well. You should always look up his references if you can.

Thanks for your interest here!

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The antecedent is the person Jesus Christ, who is man, not the human-ness of his form. The body does not give himself, the will does, the person. Besides, to identify with humanity is to say you are human.


Doug

That's rhetorical nonsense.

An grammatical antecedent is a preceding word in the syntax. What you say is not grammar. And identifying with humanity does not make one human any more than a male who identifies with females is really female. Sorry for being politically incorrect.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Thanks for your interest here!

He has stalked me before. He cannot help himself.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

So I’m guessing you are never wrong is that correct ?

If someone like Wallace were to post here and prove your Greek was wrong would you accept his correction ?

BTW, I have co-written a paper that critiques Wallace and appealed to him for clarification. I know he read it. I saw him download it.

 

[ReverendRV]

BTW, I have co-written a paper that critiques Wallace and appealed to him for clarification. I know he read it. I saw him download it.

Did he respond? Who is Gregory Blount?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Did he respond? Who is Gregory Blount?

Gregory Blunt is the author and I am helping. His Greek is much better than mine, but he has a few years on me.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Google cannot find him so not a recognized Greek expert .

And yet he has exposed Wallace. The short version is in the Abstract and not too technical.

 

[John Milton]

Here is Wallace on the definition of a clause.



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.

He is right, not you.

Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,

For God [is] one, one also [is] the mediator between God and men....The same verb is implied in both of the initial clauses, however one wishes to render them in English.

ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις.

There is no finite verb in this portion of the sentence. What you are calling a "verb" (δοὺς) is a participle. It is modifying "ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς" (a man Christ Jesus) which identifies who the one mediator between God and men is.

You are ridiculous for even entertaining the thought that the participle (δοὺς) could serve as "one verb for everything up to this point." That alone is definitive proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

He is right, not you.
For God [is] one, one also [is] the mediator between God and men....The same verb is implied in both of the initial clauses, however one wishes to render them in English.

There is no finite verb in this portion of the sentence. What you are calling a "verb" (δοὺς) is a participle. It is modifying "ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς" (a man Christ Jesus) which identifies who the one mediator between God and men is.

You are ridiculous for even entertaining the thought that the participle (δοὺς) could serve as "one verb for everything up to this point." That alone is definitive proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't take δοὺς as serving as the one verb. That was what his argument devolved to. And you know δοὺς is an independent participle.

You say he's right but he calls all of verse 5 one clause and you know that's wrong.

And if you read my analysis in this thread you will see that I say δοὺς modifies ἄνθρωπος, but he says the present tense verb in clause #1 does.

This is what I wrote:

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 ...".

 

[John Milton]

Gregory Blunt is the author and I am helping. His Greek is much better than mine, but he has a few years on me.

There is no "Gregory Blunt." That was a pseudonym used by a person (believed to be Thomas Pearne) responding to Granville Sharp in Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., on his Remarks upon the Uses of the Article in the Greek Testament. I believe you are masquerading as both "Roger Thornhill" and "Gregory Blunt." I say this because you have unilaterally offered on at least one occasion to make me a "co-author" of some of your "papers." (Why you would think I would want even my pseudonym associated with those dumpster fires is beyond my comprehension.)

You are my best friend on CARM. You have been very helpful such as what prompted me to make you co-author of my paper on John 20:28. And now my paper on John 1:1.


Post in thread 'More on John 1:1'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/more-on-john-1-1.1220/post-80342

If you want further proof of his deception, read the few posts after this one...

So you are the "Gregory Blunt" who wrote this "paper," but you are not the "Gregory Blunt" of the earlier "paper?" Maybe you will shed some light on this.

 

[Theo1689]

And yet he has exposed Wallace.

"Exposed"?!
Not a little bit of animosity there, it seems...

 

[Theo1689]

Where did he go ?

He posted this morning (and you responded to him).
Frankly, I'm glad he's found more useful things to do than post here, because his contributions don't seem to be of much value. IMO.