jaihare wrote:Markos - what do you think?
I can't see how these can be technically epexegetical genitives since "assuming a form, that is, a servant" makes no more sense in Greek than it does in English.
Markos wrote:jaihare wrote:Markos - what do you think?
Actually, Jason, we did discuss this question here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60355
On that thread, I wrote:I can't see how these can be technically epexegetical genitives since "assuming a form, that is, a servant" makes no more sense in Greek than it does in English.
On a side note, Stephen Hughes recently suggested on B-Greek a new (new, at least, to me) way to understand genitives. You pretend that the genitive case does not exist, and you replace the genitive phrase with a relative clause in which you use a verb that is implicit in the relationship between the two nouns. Thus
ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
can be paraphrased as
ἐν μορφῇ ἣ ὁμοιάζει τῷ θεῷ
or
ἐν μορφῇ ἣν ὁ θεὸς πάρειχε.
In my opinion, this is a better approach than trying to categorize genitives with English meta-language terms. A true epexegetical genitive, i.e. Rom 4:11
καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς
would be paraphrased
καὶ ἔλαβεν σημεῖον ὅ ἐστιν ἡ περιτομή.
jaihare wrote: It seems reasonable to me to read it as an epexegetical genitive. He existed in one form - and he took a different form. The first form was "God," and the second was "servant." It's not talking about appearance or shape. It's talking about the form of existence.
...there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.
Markos wrote:jaihare wrote: It seems reasonable to me to read it as an epexegetical genitive. He existed in one form - and he took a different form. The first form was "God," and the second was "servant." It's not talking about appearance or shape. It's talking about the form of existence.
It sounds like you are saying that ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is a paraphrastic (and semitic?) way of saying ὑπάρχων θεός and that μορφὴν δούλου λαβών is another way of saying γενόμενος δοῦλος. Now, I don't really disagree with you, as I believe Paul would say that Jesus was a god, and that he became a slave. But doesn't he use μορφή plus the genitive to qualify both statements? Jesus was divine as far as form goes (I do think this means something much closer to "appearance" than "existence",) and while he became a human being and a slave in form, he retained his inner divinity. Paul's Christology, that is, is somewhat lower than Orthodoxy would want it to be, and he flirts a bit here with Docetism....there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.
If his point is that one cannot use an appeal to the epexegetical genitive in this passage to establish the doctrine of the trinity, I agree with him. What is his basic point?
jaihare wrote:If you understand it otherwise, how would you explain it? How do you understand ἐν μορφῇ and λαβεῖν μορφήν here?
Markos wrote:jaihare wrote:If you understand it otherwise, how would you explain it? How do you understand ἐν μορφῇ and λαβεῖν μορφήν here?
ὃς ὢν ὁμοῖος θεῷ...ἐγένετο ὁμοῖος δούλῳ.
Isaac Newton wrote:Hi Jaihare,
Greetings and peace....
The problem is with your assertion that Θεοῦ and δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are epexegetical genitives . This simply cannot [reasonably speaking] be the case. Perhaps you should re-visit the definition of epexegetical genitive.
Whether μορφῇ in Phil. 2:6-8 means "the nature" (as in ontology) or "appearance" (as in function) is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the bone of contention at this time.
Best regards,
"Every genitive of apposition, like most genitive uses, can be translated with of + the genitive noun. To test whether the genitive in question is a genitive of apposition, replace the word of with the paraphrase which is or that is, namely, or, if a personal noun, who is. If it does not make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is unlikely; if it does make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is likely."
Isaac Newton wrote:Hi Jaihare,
<snip>
I mean no personal offense JaiHare, but I very strongly feel that you're mistaken . Would you please reconsider ? Let's be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
Isaac Newton wrote:Greetings and peace in the name of Jesus Christ who came from the only true God, the Father ...
Isaac Newton wrote:In GGBB, p.95 Wallace describes how to test for an epexegetical genitive. :"Every genitive of apposition, like most genitive uses, can be translated with of + the genitive noun. To test whether the genitive in question is a genitive of apposition, replace the word of with the paraphrase which is or that is, namely, or, if a personal noun, who is. If it does not make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is unlikely; if it does make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is likely."
Isaac Newton wrote:So let's do that for both "form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ ) and "form of a servant" (μορφὴν δούλου ).
>> "Form" that is "God".....>> Not only do the two nouns not make the same sense, but the entire formula is senseless.
>> "Form" that is "a servant"....>> Again, no sense.
Also you are effectively arguing that "form" (μορφῇ) means the same thing as "God" (Θεοῦ) and "a servant" (δούλου) ! So to say μορφῇ Θεοῦ and μορφὴν δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are both epexegetical genitives is IMHO beyond ridiculous.
jaihare wrote:
What does it mean to be "like" God and "like" a servant? Would that mean that he was neither God nor a servant but only seemed like each?
Paul wrote Rom. 1:1:
Παῦλος, δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ...
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος?
Markos wrote:χαίροις δὴ ἐν Κυρίῳ, φίλτατε!
Markos wrote:Jesus is like Yahweh in that He is also a god and he co-created the universe. He's not the same as Yahweh. Jesus was like a slave the way Paul was like a slave.
Isaac Newton wrote:I hope others can participate and contribute to this discussion. You and I seem to be at an impasse here. I hope there are no hard feelings , we can certainly agree to disagree respectfully.
Isaac Newton wrote:Hi JaiHare,
I'm really sorry if I've hurt your feelings in the past, whatever it was, it was not purposefully done. Please accept my apologies. Also, I will say this as gently as I can, -- but IMHO you have been far more "harsh" with me than I've been with you. But I hold no ill feeling towards you, and am completely at peace with you . Please have the same attitude towards me. I will continue to speak truthfully, firmly and if necessary, yes, even a little "harshly" .
καὶ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν· ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος.
Isaac Newton wrote:Hi Jaihare,
Please do not get upset if I counsel you to practice what you preach. In this regard, I suggest that you meditate upon the verse in your signature portion, which summarizes all of the law. Part of loving your neighbour is in not slandering them.καὶ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν· ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος.
Leviticus 19:18b
Be at peace,
Isaac Newton wrote:Hi Jaihare,
Isaac Newton wrote:But who are you to judge another ? Shall we not leave all judgment to God ? None of us is "innocent." Please do not be self-righteous.
Isaac Newton wrote:I am quite disappointed that you no longer subscribe to what is declared in your signature . Would you please [therefore] remove Leviticus 19:18b from your signature portion. I'm not asking you to do this out of anger or spite, but out of respect for that verse.
Isaac Newton wrote:I shall be a little "firm" and warn you (simply because I care for you) that the following is diametrically in conflict with the word of God: " It is a Christian maxim that you must love your enemies.I reject that maxim and believe in holding those who treat you badly in contempt and forgiving no one who isn't sincere." It is something Nietzsch, Crowley and Lavey would say.
Isaac Newton wrote:Would you please reconsider ? If you do what is right, will God not accept you?
ἐπηρώτων δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ στρατευόμενοι λέγοντες Τί ποιήσωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς; καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Μηδένα διασείσητε μηδὲ συκοφαντήσητε, καὶ ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις ὑμῶν.
Isaac Newton wrote:Jason,
You have made some serious accusations. I humbly and gently ask again-- would you please support your accusations.
Isaac Newton wrote:Jason.
Again, could you please provide an example ? -- show us my most "abusive" post at Carm. I'm calling your bluff, with some sadness.
Next post, I will print out some of your "abusive" posts for all to see. You leave me little choice. I'm giving you fair warning.
"Yes, I would say that over the past year or so that we've been interacting here, I've developed a pretty strong sense of hate for you. That would probably be accurate enough. The thinking presented in your posts turns my stomach. It's absolutely repulsive, and I'm sad to think that a person exists in the real world whose thinking is actually warped to this level."
"The Jehovah's Witnesses are ignorant fools. All of their scholarship is defunct and twisted. Opposing stupidity is not grinding an ax, although I do grind my teeth when I think that you actually present their garbage as if they had some sense. "
"Like a little girl that points her finger in her brother's face, moving it around erratically and saying, "I'm not touching you!" You push and ***** and poke until someone shouts at you, then you decry their lack of character. You're a wicked troll of the worst kind. People like you should be banned from every serious forum. You should probably be medicated and quarantined, in fact.
"Evil, Lunatic, Child of the Devil, Satan, Father of Lies, Anti Christ,Idiot, Fool, stupid Ignoramous, Darth Vader"
"Well, shouldn't you be praising the GODS ? " violation rule 22
"If this doesn't do it, then frankly I'm at a loss -- how to get through to Civic... Any suggestions?" Violation rule 12
"You above all have taught me what Jesus' saying at Matthew 7:6 entails, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces..." This infraction is worth 10 point(s) , --- no reason given
"Well, you have said Jesus is God. So you're contradicting yourself when you say "God was not formed in the womb." No reason given
"I've made a new rule: anyone wishing a discussion with me must know the meaning of the word synecdoche." "Insulted a member"
"Why are your eyes so blinded to the truth of what John is saying ? " Reason: Rule 22: Divisive/Inflammatory
"You can say that again." Reason: Rule 12
"The individuals at Carm. making this [absurd] claim about 2 John 1:7 have a tendency to manufacture their own grammar. Yet they couldn't parse a Greek verb if their life depended upon it." Rule 22: Divisive/Inflammatory
"Again, Trinitarian orthodoxy asserts that Jesus is not a human person , but John 1:14 asserts that he sure is.
JM," VIOLATION RULE 22
"The following is taken from Divine Truth or Human Tradition, Authorhouse, 2007, Patrick Navas, p. 309-311"
[I was banned for quoting the above non-Trinitarian author]
General Rule violations: Check your post for possible violation of rule #29, or Links, #17, or All caps, or #23, English only,
Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson,
If you cannot defend your accusations then you must not accuse . There are infact no "juicy" posts of mine which have been [conveniently] "removed" by the moderators. Why would they remove my "abusive" posts and leave yours intact ? You're not speaking truthfully. And you have been "banned" many times at Carm. , by your own admission.
You have forced my hand, dear friend . I do the following with a heavy heart. Here are some examples of the abuse which you have heaped on the relatively powerless minorities at Carm., that is, upon Unitarians (like myself) , on the JWs and on others, while at the same time currying favour with the powers that be there, namely the Trinitarian majority. I've not furnished the worse ....
Jameson;"Yes, I would say that over the past year or so that we've been interacting here, I've developed a pretty strong sense of hate for you. That would probably be accurate enough. The thinking presented in your posts turns my stomach. It's absolutely repulsive, and I'm sad to think that a person exists in the real world whose thinking is actually warped to this level."
---
Jameson,"The Jehovah's Witnesses are ignorant fools. All of their scholarship is defunct and twisted. Opposing stupidity is not grinding an ax, although I do grind my teeth when I think that you actually present their garbage as if they had some sense. "
---
Jameson,"Like a little girl that points her finger in her brother's face, moving it around erratically and saying, "I'm not touching you!" You push and ***** and poke until someone shouts at you, then you decry their lack of character. You're a wicked troll of the worst kind. People like you should be banned from every serious forum. You should probably be medicated and quarantined, in fact.
---
Here's one of your supporters, named Timberdoodle, cursing me:"Evil, Lunatic, Child of the Devil, Satan, Father of Lies, Anti Christ,Idiot, Fool, stupid Ignoramous, Darth Vader"
I will stress again that I've done this with a heavy heart. .I don't bear a grudge against you, nor do I hate you . I will continue to pray for you.
Be at peace,
Third, as I said to you before, if I were allowed to use harsher language to express just what I think of your foolishness and rash chutzpah on these forums, I would..
You have the worst and most venomous snake-like character that I have ever seen of anyone online, and I've participated in many different forums. If I said it in plain language, I would make some people blush. I cannot get around calling it like it is. If I had the power, I would delete every nick that you create on every forum and ban you from the Internet. There are enough lies out there, and you do nothing but continue to the build-up of false lying crap that is already polluting the web streams
Isaac Newton wrote:Please come to the realization that you "hate" me for no reason other than for my thinking .
jaihare wrote:
You might like to believe that, but it isn't the case. There are others on CARM who are also Unitarians and hold the same opinions as you in many cases. However, they are not abusive of other posters. .
You consistently bully and badger, beat people over the head, etc. This question over Phil. 2:6-7 is itself an example of this. You have again and again brought this passage up as a weapon against me, trying to tell others on the forum that I'm an ignoramus and cannot understand the Bible because I read these phrases as epexegetical genitives. You did the same thing with your supposed example of constructio ad sensum in John 1 about τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν and the use of the masculine in the following verse. You did the same thing with so many verses. You get an opinion fixed in your head, and then you browbeat anyone who disagrees with your opinion.
What aroused my strong emotional reactions to your posts is the consistency in your attacks on other posters. You are not content to let people have their own opinions, but you try to make them into fools if they don't accept either your thinking or your conclusions. It's completely unacceptable, and as I have stated many times, you are probably the worst case of megalomania that I've run into online
Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
Users browsing this forum: Isaac Newton and 26 guests