uberdwayne wrote:Isaac wrote:BTW, I forgot to mention Uberdwayne. So 7 of you.
Nope, you didn't forget me, this would only be my second post in this thread.
Isaac Newton wrote:Perhaps more accurately, it hasn't been going your way for at least 7 of them ?
What
way is that Isaac? Can you show me a post I've made in this thread where I give my opinion on which way I think concerning 1 John 1:1? Truth is, you don't know because I haven't stated it and you jumped to a conclusion.
I have not contributed to this conversation at all, only to suggest that it be ended (and this post, of course). It is getting quite silly.
If its your goal to change their thinking on this matter, you've lost the ability to do that because everyone seems to be getting frustrated with you, so why bother anymore, you will only be frustrating the others further? Unless of course, that is your goal.
It's not. I suspect though that it's the other way round..
You've had 9 pages and you've accomplished nothing, at least in the minds of those you are trying to convert.
Why would you think that though ? I'm not. The reason for this topic, if you really have to know, is to debunk the Mickey-Mouse Greek that does the rounds in threads dominated by the "Deity of Christ" crowd (as this one certainly is). Here's a quick sample of what I'm talking about:
(1) that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent.
(2) that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1:1 cannot be two genitives in simple apposition unless we add ὅ ἐστι to the expression.
(3) that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 is
not τὸ φῶς in verse 9.
(4) that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in 1 John 1:3 is the "main verb" which governs the relatives at 1 John 1:1.
(5) ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα at John 19:22 is "structurally identical" to ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν at 1 John 1:1.
(6) that the first relative (at 1 John 1:1) is referring to the One who is later revealed as the Lord Jesus Christ.
(7) that Constructio ad sensum happens with references to people, not to abstract concepts (like "words" or "love").
(8) doubting whether the neuter relative pronoun ὅ is able to refer to a masculine or feminine antecedent by constructio ad sensum, taken in the general sense of thing.
(9) insisting that both Θεοῦ (Phil. 2:6) and δούλου (Phil. 2:7) are epexegetical genitives.
And I can go on....
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν