Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

[Roger Thornhill]

This is in agreement with my previous remarks, so why are you bringing it up?

You said:
There is only one person mentioned in the activities of John 1:3-4. It's funny to watch you introduce things you don't understand.

There is also θεος at John 1:1b who every scholar I have read considers to be the Father. If you mean that there is no pronoun referring to him in the clause with the passive verb, my references show that both BDAG and Wallace see an ultimate agent who uses the Word as His intermediate agent in this activity.

So if you were to argue that since there is only one mentioned and so only one agent you have no support from anyone but Oneness or Biblical Unitarians.

Your moniker is a Unitarian. So you must have some fondness for their teach

If you weren't attempting to insult me, I would pity your foolishness, but as it is you deserve this. If you were less concerned with cherry picking your sources and more concerned with understanding them, you might(Now, there's a remote possibility!) have noticed that the author disagrees with the punctuation you feel is correct. This, of course, changes the meaning of the clause and verse quite a bit. So I'll let you tell me: why do you feel you can use BDAG here in support of your position when it contradicts your foundational premise?

BDAG uses the NRSV for its glosses, but presents both views. On what basis do you say they prefer the KJV punctuation?

I have not seen that, and in fact looked at each direct reference to their comments on Greek words in J 1 just yesterday to see if they did.

I did not find anything. You have said in the past that you don't have BDAG and asked that I quote it for you. Has that changed?

And I don't know why you think I haven't expressed my view about John 1. I have done such a good job doing so that you have abandoned discussion about the passage and are appealing to theological arguments from all over scripture. You know you have no answer for what I have said!

I don't recall you making any grammatical point for John 1, and to be honest when I hear bald opinions I don't retain those details as they are irrelevant to me.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I think you are confusing αρπαγμος and υπάρχον.

Yes.. "Aspire" (an act of desire) for ἁρπαγμὸν is certainly a possibility. It is in line with the meaning of "to grasp for."

who existing in the image of God, DID aspire to equality with God (by eating of the forbidden fruit

Look here for instance:

the act of seizing or the thing seized
Usage: spoil, an object of eager desire, a prize.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Yes.. "Aspire" (an act of desire) for ἁρπαγμὸν is certainly a possibility. It is in line with the meaning of "to grasp for."



Look here for instance:

Strongs, really???

αρπαγμος never means simply "desire." If you think it does you will need to provide a reference to a Greek text and translation.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Sorry, but your criticism of my use of Galatians 4 means you cannot consider what you call "synonyms."

They are different words and while there is likely semantic overlap you need to adhere to the same rules you use for my arguments.

Of course they are different words. Synonyms are different words with similar meanings.

Your response to my argument that μορφή in Phil. 2:6 is a synonym for εἰκών is to simply deny that it is so. That's not an argument. How are you so sure that there is no synonym for εἰκών in Koine Greek , or that μορφή does not in some contexts function as a synonym for εἰκών, or vice versa ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Yes, "form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ) suggests a man in a sinless state (kind of like Adam pre-sin). "Likeness of men" (not singular "man," ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων) suggests the status of all of us, sinful humanity. In other words he who had no sin became sin. You should remember the following words when you read this portion of Phil. 2:6-7--



-------



That's nonsense. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν suggests that he sacrificed himself for us, gave his all, poured out his soul. You should remember the following prophesy when you read these words --




Isaiah 53:12

And also the following words,



Eph. 5:2

I have not seen any example where κενοω means to sacrifice oneself. Because of your propensity to argue with statistics as a means to ignore synonyms I cannot accept this line of argument from you. You should thank me for keeping you honest.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Strongs, really???

αρπαγμος never means simply "desire." If you think it does you will need to provide a reference to a Greek text and translation.

I wrote "aspire to" not simply "desire"(as in wishful thinking). Again, as strong suggests -- an object of eager desire

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Of course they are different words. Synonyms are different words with similar meanings.

Your response to my argument that μορφή in Phil. 2:6 is a synonym for εἰκών is to simply deny that it is so. That's not an argument. How are you so sure that there is no synonym for εἰκών in Koine Greek , or that μορφή does not in some contexts function as a synonym for εἰκών, or vice versa ?

No, I am just applying your hermeneutic back at you until you acknowledge your response to "child" at Galatians 4 was not a legitimate response. But since you are so fond of this sort of argument you might just be stuck with it. You use it frequently.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I wrote "aspire to" not simply "desire"(as in wishful thinking). Again, as strong suggests -- an object of eager desire

Whatever. That's a distinction without a difference until you produce an actual Greek text that uses it that way.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I have not seen any example where κενοω means to sacrifice oneself. Because of your propensity to argue with statistics as a means to ignore synonyms I cannot accept this line of argument from you. You should thank me for keeping you honest.

I wrote "sacrifice" as in "to give of oneself," "to pour out one's soul or self," etc. You seem to want to argue against red herring caricatures of my arguments rather than against my actual arguments, which is unfortunate, as it robs you of learning opportunities.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I wrote "sacrifice" as in "to give of oneself," "to pour out one's soul or self," etc. You seem to want to argue against red herring caricatures of my arguments rather than against my actual arguments, which is unfortunate, as it robs you of learning opportunities.

Have I not made myself clear? Until you produce an example of the word in a Greek text you are wasting your time. Or you could stop using mere statistical arguments and recant on Galatians 4.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No, I am just applying your hermeneutic back at you until you acknowledge your response to "child" at Galatians 4 was not a legitimate response. But since you are so fond of this sort of argument you might just be stuck with it. You use it frequently.

You're not interacting rationally with me. What exactly is your argument against my position that at Phil. 2:6 μορφή is a synonym for εἰκών ? So far all you have said on this score is that "it cannot be so." That is not an argument, at least not an intelligent one .

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Not sure why you think “existing” for ἁπαργμός is bad? Look at Berean Literal Translation, for instance:

"Existing" translates ὑπάρχων...

 

[The Real John Milton]

Whatever. That's a distinction without a difference until you produce an actual Greek text that uses it that way.

Not "whatever." Look at the following example for instance:

ἐκενώθη ἡ τίκτουσα ἑπτά ἀπεκάκησεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτῆς ἐπέδυ ὁ ἥλιος αὐτῇ ἔτι μεσούσης τῆς ἡμέρας κατῃσχύνθη καὶ ὠνειδίσθη τοὺς καταλοίπους αὐτῶν εἰς μάχαιραν δώσω ἐναντίον τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῶν

"She that hath borne seven hath poured out / spent herself,....."

In fact it is your definition of the word which finds no precedent in the GNT or the LXX.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Whatever. That's a distinction without a difference until you produce an actual Greek text that uses it that way.

That would be nice, but don't hold your breath. Suffice it to say that no one has rendered it that way, and for good reason.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No, I am just applying your hermeneutic back at you until you acknowledge your response to "child" at Galatians 4 was not a legitimate response. But since you are so fond of this sort of argument you might just be stuck with it. You use it frequently.

Here is an example where εἰκών could be substituted for μορφή .

Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι·

Hebrews 10:1


Here again, it is your definition of the word in fact which has no precedent in the GNT or the LXX.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You're not interacting rationally with me. What exactly is your argument against my position that at Phil. 2:6 μορφή is a synonym for εἰκών ? So far all you have said on this score is that "it cannot be so." That is not an argument, at least not an intelligent one .

I have dismissed your argument based on the fact that you dismissed mine on Galatians 4:1-4 based on the lack of parallel for a particular Greek word.

I am trying to keep (make?) you honest.

 

[The Real John Milton]

That would be nice, but don't hold your breath. Suffice it to say that no one has rendered it that way, and for good reason.

Being that the word occurs only once in the GNT, that's a pretty rash assertion. That being said, I am not averse to "grasp for" for ἁρπαγμός. I don't understand however why "aspire to" is unacceptable if "grasp for" is ok. ? Isn't the one expression pretty much saying the same thing as the other ?

as·pire --
direct one's hopes or ambitions towards achieving something.
"we never thought that we might aspire to those heights"

Grasp for definition is - to try in a desperate or awkward way to get (something).

 

[John Milton]

You said:
There is also θεος at John 1:1b who every scholar I have read considers to be the Father.

I wasn't talking about John 1:1.

If you mean that there is no pronoun referring to him in the clause with the passive verb, my references show that both

Why don't you produce a scholarly source that advances your specific, idiosyncratic view of the text so I don't have to spend so much of my time interacting with you correcting your misunderstandings of your references?

BDAG and Wallace see an ultimate agent who uses the Word as His intermediate agent in this activity.

For the third time, I have already addressed this! And I also explained to you why it does not matter. You have been refuted. Move on or come up with another argument.

So if you were to argue that since there is only one mentioned and so only one agent you have no support from anyone but Oneness or Biblical Unitarians.

Your moniker is a Unitarian. So you must have some fondness for their teach

There is only one person mentioned in John 1:3-4. As I said before, you have a fondness for ad hominem.

BDAG uses the NRSV for its glosses, but presents both views. On what basis do you say they prefer the KJV punctuation?

I have not seen that, and in fact looked at each direct reference to their comments on Greek words in J 1 just yesterday to see if they did.

I did not find anything. You have said in the past that you don't have BDAG and asked that I quote it for you. Has that changed?

It's in the BGAD quote you provided. ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a. I didn't say they "prefer" any particular punctuation. I said it should be obvious to you that their comment referred to a specific construction. You shouldn't apply those remarks to the phrase ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as though there were no difference.

I don't recall you making any grammatical point for John 1,

I made points about John 1:3-4.

and to be honest when I hear bald opinions I don't retain those details as they are irrelevant to me.

If that were true, we wouldn't hear much from you at all...

 

[The Real John Milton]

I have dismissed your argument based on the fact that you dismissed mine on Galatians 4:1-4 based on the lack of parallel for a particular Greek word.

I am trying to keep (make?) you honest.

I see. Have a good day, -- you are wasting my time, and yours also.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I wasn't talking about John 1:1.

Why don't you produce a scholarly source that advances your specific, idiosyncratic view of the text so I don't have to spend so much of my time interacting with you correcting your misunderstandings of your references?

For the third time, I have already addressed this! And I also explained to you why it does not matter. You have been refuted. Move on or come up with another argument.

There is only one person mentioned in John 1:3-4. As I said before, you have a fondness for ad hominem.

It's in the BGAD quote you provided. ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a. I didn't say they "prefer" any particular punctuation. I said it should be obvious to you that their comment referred to a specific construction. You shouldn't apply those remarks to the phrase ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as though there were no difference.

I made points about John 1:3-4.

If that were true, we wouldn't hear much from you at all...

You said:
It's in the BGAD quote you provided. ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a. I didn't say they "prefer" any particular punctuation. I said it should be obvious to you that their comment referred to a specific construction. You shouldn't apply those remarks to the phrase ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as though there were no difference.

The quote is:
β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.

How does the KJV punctuation demonstrate that he received life from God? With a full stop after ο γεγονεν the life in him is governed by ην, a stative verb and the start of life in him is not visible in the syntax.