Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

An analysis of the verses which [apparently] call Jesus "God"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChristianScholar View Post

    ok, we all make mistakes. No problem.

    But still, where did he say that autou is masculine and where does he say that it switched to feminine?

    It still doesn't make sense
    This was my first post. Notice everything is perfectly acceptable.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    Nope. The nearest referent that matches grammatical gender is ὁ λόγος. The pronoun matches this. We beheld the glory of him (the word).

    John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

    Hope this clears things up for you.






    It was at this point that you accused me of being wrong twice.

    Originally posted by ChristianScholar View Post
    How patronizing. What religion are you? (so I can avoid it)
    John Milton, we both know this guy obviously doesn't know Greek and has confused natural and grammatical gender and is actually arguing for your position without realizing it. Let's not get sidetracked please.
    Originally posted by ChristianScholar View Post

    Again, you clearly don't understand the difference between natural and grammatical gender and obviously don't know Greek. Going through your posts won't change what you wrote in the above one. But, so typical of people on here, you just dig in. Clearly it isn't worth interacting with you any further. In fact, you don't even know what you said that gives the game away. You don't know because you don't know Greek!!
    It was after this post that I attempted to clarify what I had written

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    He is claiming that (αὐτοῦ) is a masculine pronoun and that it "switched" because it references the light which is grammatically feminine.

    Your explanation for what is going on has nothing to do with what he seems to believe.
    I conflated his actual argument with what I had written to refute it in verse 14. I, of course, should have written neuter.

    The post below is where is where he says that αὐτοῦ is masculine. This is the only masculine pronoun he could be referring to.

    Originally posted by John Milton View Post
    That’s just the point: only after the Light has become flesh does the apostle switch to the use of masculine pronouns in reference to it.
    It seems to me we both owe each other an apology. Again, I am sorry.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
      Nope. The nearest referent that matches grammatical gender is ὁ λόγος. The pronoun matches this. We beheld the glory of him (the word
      The problem with this is that it doesn't answer him. The accusative pronoun auton being a masculine is a problem for him, not something that supports his argument. He has to try to make auton refer to after the incarnation, which is why I pushed him on the auton referring to the pre-incarnational light, and therefore showing that Jesus pre-existed.

      What does it achieve by making the auton match logos, which has grammatical masculine gender and therefore doesn't stay anything about whether Jesus pre-existed as the word or not? If auton is only masculine because Logos is masculine, and if he is interpreting 'logos' as an impersonal thing, then he would understand the auton that agrees with logos as referring to an impersonal thing. It wouldn't help. Masculine words don't have to refer to persons in Greek, but can refer to things. Grammatical gender doesn't help here.

      Thanks for the apology. This has not been an edifying conversation. I apologize too. I hate the sassiness that is so characteristic of internet discussions.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChristianScholar View Post

        The problem with this is that it doesn't answer him. The accusative pronoun auton being a masculine is a problem for him, not something that supports his argument. He has to try to make auton refer to after the incarnation, which is why I pushed him on the auton referring to the pre-incarnational light, and therefore showing that Jesus pre-existed.

        What does it achieve by making the auton match logos, which has grammatical masculine gender and therefore doesn't stay anything about whether Jesus pre-existed as the word or not? If auton is only masculine because Logos is masculine, and if he is interpreting 'logos' as an impersonal thing, then he would understand the auton that agrees with logos as referring to an impersonal thing. It wouldn't help. Masculine words don't have to refer to persons in Greek, but can refer to things. Grammatical gender doesn't help here.

        Thanks for the apology. This has not been an edifying conversation. I apologize too. I hate the sassiness that is so characteristic of internet discussions.
        It wasn't my intent to refute his argument. I only demonstrated that his specific claim ("only after the Light has become flesh does the apostle switch to the use of masculine pronouns in reference to it") is false. The masculine pronoun in verse 14 doesn't refer to "light" it refers to "word." There is no other way to understand it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post

          It wasn't my intent to refute his argument. I only demonstrated that his specific claim ("only after the Light has become flesh does the apostle switch to the use of masculine pronouns in reference to it") is false. The masculine pronoun in verse 14 doesn't refer to "light" it refers to "word." There is no other way to understand it.
          Is Milton implying that if "light" were a pre-incarnate person, a masculine pronoun would have been used, as opposed to a neuter pronoun? Just trying to understand exactly what's going on.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

            Is Milton implying that if "light" were a pre-incarnate person, a masculine pronoun would have been used, as opposed to a neuter pronoun? Just trying to understand exactly what's going on.
            He has said a number of things. Like this:
            Originally posted by John Milton View Post
            Here's a conversation which took between me and another Carm. poster :



            IMHO, anyone who insists that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in John 1:17 and not τὸ φῶς in John 1:9 is the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 should refrain from reading the Gospel of John for their own good. Remember, the Gospel of John (and every other scripture) is a dangerous fire which leads the one mishandling it to start a flame of rage (and worse) in his own soul.

            In the peace which is in Christ Jesus,
            Originally posted by John Milton View Post

            That's not true. Sensible people here agree with me that αὐτὸν (in John 1:10,11 and 12) is an instance of ad sensum (though obviously they may not agree with my theology ). Would you please see reason on this score ? filter through all the Trinitarian sources I have cited in this thread, including Wallace. Also remember your friends Paragon and Polyb who had to come out against you on this point (those threads unfortunately are now no longer on display). And Marcos from Text Kit. I can still print his words for you. Don't you remember the following ? Or is your memory failing you ? --




            And so on..

            Remember Jameson, if you continue dwelling in darkness (even if only to use it against me as a weapon of spite) it will consume you so that eventually you will really not be able to distinguish reality from falsehood.
            Originally posted by John Milton View Post

            The "simplest" explanation is by ad sensum, your explanation is contextually and grammatically impossible since it leaves the topic and the noun (namely τὸ φῶς in verse 9) under discussion hanging . Had apostle John written in verse 9 the following , Ἦν ὁ Λόγος, ὅς φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον...., then the antecedent of αὐτὸν in verse 10 would be ὁ Λόγος.
            Originally posted by John Milton View Post

            Now you're compounding your problems with more erroneous statements. A pronoun cannot have two different words which are it's antecedents, even if you think these two words are interchangeable. Besides, ὁ Λόγος does not equal Ἰησοῦς Χριστός . ὁ λόγος ὁ γενόμενος σὰρξ = Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.

            You can try to enlist Barry's support of these errors as well and he might just provide it (so far he has blindly sanctioned most of your errors), but it's not going to change the fact that you're lying to yourself.

            Comment


            • Here are a few more:
              Originally posted by John Milton View Post

              It does not bode well for it. Even in English if we take "the Light" to be a person we employ a sort of ad sensum, by referring to it with a personal pronoun. "'The Light' was with apostle John. When he heard my voice, he left apostle John and he immediately came out to meet me." It is even odder (is this a word?) to refer to a personal Light in Greek without ad sensum, especially if the person is a man. Then it would be construed either as a thing or a woman:




              Nah, never going to work if the apostle believed "the Light" to be personal at this time. We have proof of my argument in the sacred scripture, -- Col. 2:19.
              Originally posted by John Milton View Post
              In truth Daniel Wallace, Stephen Carlson (and all relatively sane exegetes ) agree with my understanding that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 is τὸ φῶς in verse 9 by ad sensum. Besides, it's not a numbers game. .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                Is Milton implying that if "light" were a pre-incarnate person, a masculine pronoun would have been used, as opposed to a neuter pronoun? Just trying to understand exactly what's going on.
                In a word, yes.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                  Here are a few more:

                  I need to go through these one by one. Thx. Just trying to get my arms around this.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                    I need to go through these one by one. Thx. Just trying to get my arms around this.
                    Well, you have already seen his treatment of John 20:28...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post

                      It wasn't my intent to refute his argument. I only demonstrated that his specific claim ("only after the Light has become flesh does the apostle switch to the use of masculine pronouns in reference to it") is false. The masculine pronoun in verse 14 doesn't refer to "light" it refers to "word." There is no other way to understand it.
                      The masculine pronoun in verse 14 refers to the Word made flesh in the same verse, NOT to pre-flesh Word in John 1:1.

                      Having said that, my argument has to do with the masculine pronoun in verses, 10,11 and 12.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                        The masculine pronoun in verse 14 refers to the Word made flesh in the same verse, NOT to pre-flesh Word in John 1:1.

                        Having said that, my argument has to do with the masculine pronoun in verses, 10,11 and 12.
                        You said the light became flesh. Now you are saying something different. Which is it? If this masculine pronoun doesn't refer to the "Light become flesh" which one does?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                          You said the light became flesh. Now you are saying something different. Which is it? If this masculine pronoun doesn't refer to the "Light become flesh" which one does?
                          “Light” before it became flesh and “Word” before it became flesh refer to the same thing but their respective pronouns are not interchangeable.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                            What are you thoughts of C. K. Barrett's following words in his commentary on 1:14:

                            "the verb here cannot mean simply 'became' as the Word continues to the subject of further statements...the Word came on the (human) scene -- as flesh."

                            C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 1955), p. 138

                            I'm not versed in Greek, so I can't really speak to it.
                            I would have to see more context for Barrett's statement for a definitive response, but as it is cited here, I would disagree. The point of change in 1:14 is that the Word took on a condition which had not before obtained, and that was taking on flesh. "Became" in English is a valid way of expressing this and a fair translation of ἐγένετο.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ChristianScholar View Post

                              okay, two questions:
                              Where does JM ever state that 'light' is feminine?
                              Where does JM ever state that autou is masculine?

                              You have these mistaken ideas of his argument because you can't follow his argument from the Greek. You have no idea what's going on, yet you'll sit there and say: "Hope this clears it up for you". What a nice guy.
                              +1 .. The grammatical gender of τὸ φῶς is neuter, so it is impossible for it to be feminine, FWIW.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                                “Light” before it became flesh and “Word” before it became flesh refer to the same thing but their respective pronouns are not interchangeable.
                                I am still wondering where you think masculine pronouns are used to refer to the "Light" after it became flesh.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X