Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Latreuo. Never to Jesus.


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#31 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 09:38 PM

Are you able to admit that the Father and the Son are identified by the same name?

Looks to me like 'the name of the Father' (one name) plus 'the name of the son' (another name) = two names. The Bible clearly distinguishes between the two. Jesus himself said he did not come in his own name, but that of the Fathers.

They do not share the personal identities of Father and Son but they do share divine nature and it's perfections, the throne, the kingdom, the priests, etc. Or is there 2 names on the foreheads of the saints?

Yes, and so do the saints. The saints are 'partakers of the divine nature;' The saints sit with Jesus on his throne as Jesus sits on the Father's throne; the saints inherit the kingdom with Jesus; and the saints reign as kings AND PRIESTS with Jesus. By your argument, the saints are as much God as is Jesus.

By the way, Jesus does NOT share a priesthood with God. God is not a priest. A priest is someone who is taken from among men and is ordained for men in things pertaining to God. It makes no sense to say that Jesus shares a priesthood with God.

Edited by Guido, 14 December 2006 - 09:50 PM.


#32 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 10:03 PM

Looks to me like 'the name of the Father' (one name) plus 'the name of the son' (another name) = two names. The Bible clearly distinguishes between the two. Jesus himself said he did not come in his own name, but that of the Fathers.

What is the one name that is on the foreheads of the saints?

Yes, and so do the saints. The saints are 'partakers of the divine nature;' The saints sit with Jesus on his throne as Jesus sits on the Father's throne; the saints inherit the kingdom with Jesus; and the saints reign as kings AND PRIESTS with Jesus. By your argument, the saints are as much God as is Jesus.


The divine nature does join with us but it is not our nature and does not deify us. Saints will not have the ability to do the things that Christ does. He does miraculous things because he is divine (Jn. 5:19).

By the way, Jesus does NOT share a priesthood with God. God is not a priest. A priest is someone who is taken from among men and is ordained for men in things pertaining to God. It makes no sense to say that Jesus shares a priesthood with God.

You are right that Christ is identified as our hight priest and he has our human nature. What I said is that in Re. 20:6 the priest that are mentioned are priest of God and of Christ--they are shared priests.

God does live in and work his will through believers (Php. 2:13).

#33 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 10:12 PM


Looks to me like 'the name of the Father' (one name) plus 'the name of the son' (another name) = two names. The Bible clearly distinguishes between the two. Jesus himself said he did not come in his own name, but that of the Fathers.

What is the one name that is on the foreheads of the saints?

Where does it say there is ONLY one name?

The divine nature does join with us but it is not our nature and does not deify us.

So then why do you imagine it deifies Christ?

Saints will not have the ability to do the things that Christ does. He does miraculous things because he is divine (Jn. 5:19).

John 14:12
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

#34 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 10:39 PM

Where does it say there is ONLY one name?


Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads (Re. 14:1).

So then why do you imagine it deifies Christ?


That is his nature. He added human nature to his divine nature (Php. 2:6-7). He is both God and man.

John 14:12
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

These things are not being done by human power. God does these things through his people.

#35 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 10:44 PM

Where does it say there is ONLY one name?

Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads (Re. 14:1).

Right, and that would be two names. So where does it say there is only one name?

So then why do you imagine it deifies Christ?

That is his nature. He added human nature to his divine nature (Php. 2:6-7). He is both God and man.

Where in Php 2:6-7 does it say that Jesus 'added human nature to his divine nature'?

John 14:12
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

These things are not being done by human power. God does these things through his people.

As he does through Christ.

#36 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 11:03 PM

You need this kind of help.

Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45).

May the Lord bless you and make himself known to you.

#37 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 11:54 PM

You need this kind of help.

Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45).

I could say the same of you. Judging by your misaprehension it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

May the Lord bless you and make himself known to you.

And also to you :shrug: .

#38 Melchior

Melchior

    Delta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 15 December 2006 - 12:57 AM

'Simpleton' date='Dec 14 2006, 06:34 PM'

Patience Melchior. I have already submitted my verse (Re. 22:3) and am now defending it.


Again, your trinitarian eisegesis with respect to Rev. 22:3 not withstanding , do you have an irrefutable, a clear verse which states Jesus is given latreuo[/b] ; a verse which mentions only Jesus and then says this one's given latreuo?

The fact that you're still "defending" Rev. 22:3 shows it to be hardly conclusive from a trinitarian point of view, and highlights the poverty of your position. The entire NT and all you got is this?

Edited by Melchior, 15 December 2006 - 01:01 AM.


#39 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Chi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts

Posted 25 December 2006 - 05:06 AM

http://video.yahoo.c...o...3D&fp_ip=UK
"and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolic_meaning_of_a_horse#ixzz1K0LLUt00

#40 OneGod

OneGod

    Iota

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:33 AM

Greeting all, A trinitarian has sent me this link in response to our rply regarding 'latreuo' and Jesus.

http://www.foranansw...sus_Latreuo.htm


"It is abundantly clear that the Apostles did believe in the essential unity and co-equality of the Father and the Son. They clearly taught that since the Lord Jesus is fully God in essence he is to receive the highest form of worship and devotion imaginable, the very worship that must be given to God alone. It is little wonder that the Apostolic Father Polycarp could write that all creation gives latreuo to Christ: "....


Nay suggestion on how to counter respond to these points?

cheers

#41 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,352 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:33 AM

Shamoun's argument merely proves that he can't find any application of latreou to Jesus in the NT. His attempts to twist a latreou reference out of Revelation remain unsupported by Trinitarian commentaries. I've already refuted this line of attack (here).

Polycarp's use of latreou is irrelevant for two reasons: (a) he is not a divinely inspired Jewish Christian writing within a 2nd Temple milieu, (b) he does not confess the deity of Christ, and © he does not use latreou for this purpose. The fact that later Christians applied latreou to Christ has no impact on my original argument.

If Shamoun could show that Polycarp believed Jesus is God and that he applied latreou to him for this reason, he would have the beginnings of a valid case. All he's got right now is a few pieces of data that he's blatantly mishandling.

Edited by Evangelion, 19 October 2011 - 03:34 AM.

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#42 OneGod

OneGod

    Iota

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:05 AM

A WOW!!! article and critical response EV

Thank-you kindly :)

#43 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,352 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:06 AM

My pleasure.

:)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#44 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:36 AM

Based on the grammatical construction of Revelation 20:6 (cf. Revelation 20:4) it is very clear that the Lord Jesus is the recipient of latreuw in Revelation 22:3. To deny that is to deny the obvious.

#45 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,352 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:52 AM

Based on the grammatical construction of Revelation 20:6 (cf. Revelation 20:4) it is very clear that the Lord Jesus is the recipient of latreuw in Revelation 22:3. To deny that is to deny the obvious.


Feel free to prove it. Please note that most scholars do not hold this view.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#46 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:07 AM

Please show me an example where John uses the same grammatical construction and it doesn't refer to the nearest antecedent. I have supplied Revelation 20:6 in support of my position.
Plenty of scholars hold that Christ is the recipient of latreuw here.

#47 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:41 AM

It is not by any means "obvious" that Jesus is the subject of "service" (latreuw) in Rev 22:3, and indeed there is direct evidence to the contrary in the immediate context.

The critical issue is: to whom do the pronouns "his" and "him" at the end of the last clause of 22:3 refer - to "God" or to "the Lamb"?

As the sentence in fact continues into 22:4, without a break or change of subject, and employs further such pronouns ("his", twice) in 22:4, we can discover the answer to this question by considering what Rev 22:4 tells us. Amongst other things, it tells us that "his" name will be in their (i.e. "his" servants') foreheads.

Whose name is found written in the foreheads of the redeemed? Is it the name of the Lamb, or the name of God his father? The same book makes this perfectly clear, at Rev 14:1 - the name written on their foreheads is explicitly the name of the Lamb's father, that is, of God, not of the Lamb himself. Thus, directly, we see that the "his" in Rev 22:4 refers, not to the Lamb, but to God. So, the same pronouns at the end of Rev 22:3, which clearly have the same reference, likewise refer to God. And thus God, and not Jesus, is the object of "latreuw" in Rev 22:3.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 11 August 2012 - 07:50 AM.


#48 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:59 AM

You, and/or anyone else can address this as well:
Please show me an example where John uses the same grammatical construction and it doesn't refer to the nearest antecedent. I have supplied Revelation 20:6 in support of my position.
---------
Revelation 14:1 in the NASB reads: Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.
Furthermore, according to Revelation 3:12 Christ's name will be written on them.

The singular pronoun refers to both.
a. Vine: to God and Christ ( "the Lamb" ), Revelation 22:3 (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Serve, page 1021).
b. Robertson: "Their" (autwn) means the wrath of God and of the Lamb put here on equality as in 22:3 (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Revelation 6:17).

#49 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:34 AM

Go on just 3 verses from Rev 22:3 and you will find plain evidence of the sort you seek.

Revelation 22:6 mentions two male singular subjects in turn, "the Lord God of the holy prophets", and "his angel". Immediately after this, the pronoun 'autou' occurs (the "his" in "his servants"); yet the 'autou' does not refer to the angel, the nearer antecedent, but to the Lord God of the holy prophets, the earlier antecedent. We can see this because:
  • In Rev 1:1-2, to which this statement clearly refers, the servants mentioned are either servants of God, or of Jesus Christ, depending exactly how you read the text. The one subject they are definitely not servants of is the angel, who in that context (as in 22:6) was "sent" with the message. From this, the logical and consistent reading in Rev 22:6 is also that the servants are servants of the Lord God (which tends to support the first way of reading Rev 1:1), not servants of the angel.
  • Continuing in the same context, in Rev 22:8-9, the angel refuses John's proffered worship (as a servant can justifiably perform towards his lord, one who is his superior in some way; e.g. Exo 11:8,18:7), and instead identifies himself as a fellow-servant with John.
  • There is any case no place in scripture (at least so far as I am aware) where angels are said to have servants.
Hence your supposed rule, that the pronoun 'auto' must always refer to the nearest antecedent subject, is seen to fail in this case, so it is not a valid rule at all. This is especially significant given the very close proximity of this example to the text in question, Rev 22:3.

---------

The question of the reading in Rev 14:1 is a textual issue. The NASB is drawing on a variant manuscript; the majority of Greek texts do not include words corresponding to "his name and".

Edited by Mark Taunton, 11 August 2012 - 11:32 AM.


#50 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 11:40 AM

Your example is not the same grammatical construction as Revelation 22:3..
Let me if you really want to stick with that argument and next time the Greek text will be supplied in more detail.
----
Even if you reject the Revelation 14:1 reading from the NASB I already cited Revelation 3:12.

#51 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 11:49 AM

Your example is not the same grammatical construction as Revelation 22:3..


Then please show me another passage that is. You appear to be narrowing down your claim, to avoid the difficulty for it which I have raised. Let's see what counts as "the same grammatical construction" in your terms.

Let me if you really want to stick with that argument and next time the Greek text will be supplied in more detail.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. I would indeed stick with that argument on Rev 22:6 relative to 22:3. Please go ahead with the Greek text detail if you wish.

Even if you reject the Revelation 14:1 reading from the NASB I already cited Revelation 3:12.


Noted: I'll come back to that point later, if I may.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 11 August 2012 - 11:59 AM.


#52 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:43 PM

Show me where the word "and" (kai in Greek) comes between Lord God and the angel in Revelation 22:6.

#53 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:00 PM

OK, granted 'kai' ("and") does not occur there. So it seems you wish to restrict the scope of your supposed rule to contexts of the form:

A and B <something> Z


where A and B are possible subjects (nouns or noun-type terms of some sort), and Z is a pronoun ('autou', or some cognate of it) that in context is referring back to an earlier subject. Your claim seems to be that in such a case, Z refers exclusively to B, as being the nearer antecedent subject, and not to A.

Let's look at a few examples of such a grammatical construct, which I have found and extracted using the Online BIble. Do these match your claimed rule?

(Note: In what follows I assume from your earlier comment you can read Greek, but I give the KJV as well, which in general closely follows the Greek, in both word order and meaning. For purposes of highlighting the relevant construct within each passage, I underline the "and" ('kai') between A and B, and also the relevant pronoun.)

Mt 2:4 (BYZ) και συναγαγων παντας τους αρχιερεις και γραμματεις του λαου επυνθανετο παρ αυτων που ο χριστος γενναται
Mt 2:4 (AV) And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.


Here, A is "the chief priests" and B is "the scribes of the people"; both terms are plural, and so could match the later 'autwn'. But it is clearly unreasonable to claim that Herod was demanding only of the scribes and not also of the chief priests, as to where Christ should be born. So this goes against your claim.

Mt 3:7 (BYZ) ιδων δε πολλους των φαρισαιων και σαδδουκαιων ερχομενους επι το βαπτισμα αυτου ειπεν αυτοις γεννηματα εχιδνων τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης
Mt 3:7 ¶ (AV) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?


Here A is "Pharisees", B is "Saducees". The same argument applies as above. This case goes against your supposed rule.

Mt 4:24 (BYZ) και απηλθεν η ακοη αυτου εις ολην την συριαν και προσηνεγκαν αυτω παντας τους κακως εχοντας ποικιλαις νοσοις και βασανοις συνεχομενους και δαιμονιζομενους και σεληνιαζομενους και παραλυτικους και εθεραπευσεν αυτους
Mt 4:24 (AV) And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.


Here we have not just two but four terms: A, B, C and D (I won't spell out the correspondences, as they're obvious). But the final "them" ('autous') surely refers to all four groups of sufferers as being healed by Jesus, not just those in group D, the paralytics. It would be extraordinarily mean of Jesus to heal those only, as your rule would seem to require!

Mt 9:35 (BYZ) και περιηγεν ο ιησους τας πολεις πασας και τας κωμας διδασκων εν ταις συναγωγαις αυτων και κηρυσσων το ευαγγελιον της βασιλειας και θεραπευων πασαν νοσον και πασαν μαλακιαν εν τω λαω
Mt 9:35 ¶ (AV) And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.


A = "cities" and B = "villages". Did Jesus teach only in the synagogues of the villages, and not in those of the cities also? I very much doubt we are intended to understand this passage that way!

1 ¶ (AV) And when he had called unto [him] his twelve disciples, he gave them power [against] unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 (AV) Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 (AV) Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 (BYZ) σιμων ο κανανιτης και ιουδας ισκαριωτης ο και παραδους αυτον
4 (AV) Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5 ¶ (AV) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:


(Note: I give the Greek only for verse 4 in particular as matching the grammatical construct of interest, but the wider context is relevant for understanding.)

This case is clearly somewhat different from those above, and even more striking in its signficance. In verse 4, A is Simon the Canaanite and B is Judas Iscariot. But to which of those does the "him" ('auton') at the end refer? From the context, we realise that it is certainly not referring to Judas Iscariot, but nor does it refer to SImon the Canaanite either. The "him" in fact refers all the way back to the "he" of verse 1, which is of course Jesus. So your "rule" has fallen to pieces entirely, in this instance!

Mt 10:18 (BYZ) και επι ηγεμονας δε και βασιλεις αχθησεσθε ενεκεν εμου εις μαρτυριον αυτοις και τοις εθνεσιν
Mt 10:18 (AV) And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.


Would Jesus' disciples give their testimony only to the kings (B), and not also to the governors (A), before whom they would be brought? Of course not! Again, your rule fails.


OK, I'm going to stop there. I've been searching through the NT in order, have only reached Matthew 10, but already I've found 6 examples that one way or another seem to match in grammatical context, yet disprove your rule, at least in the terms in which I have tried to capture it.

Of course I rather suspect you will object to this analysis, because it doesn't support your claim. I expect you will want to narrow down the specification of your "rule", in some way, so as to exclude all those cases above from consideration. Given that expectation, rather than spend any more of my time looking for texts matching the constructs according to the "rule" that I have supposed you meant, I invite you to define this rule more explicitly and precisely, in your own terms, so that it would be clear and unambiguous as to whether some passage fits the context in which the rule is supposed to apply. Once you've done that, we can explore the scriptures again, looking for cases that match, and see what we find about the meaning...

Edited by Mark Taunton, 11 August 2012 - 04:11 PM.


#54 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 11:21 PM

Too long winded. I asked for another example given by John where the same construction is used (post #46 and #48). I supplied one that supports my position. And yours is...?

#55 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:36 AM

Too long winded


Agreed that's a longish post. But it's not long-winded, it's just more evidence than was needed to refute your claim.

I asked for another example given by John where the same construction is used (post #46 and #48). I supplied one that supports my position. And yours is...


You still need to define what you mean by "the same construction". In my last post I tried to work out what that was, given what you'd said, and you've not said what's wrong with that.

I explicitly gave you the opportunity to define this "construction" more precisely, and that offer is still open. But until you do, then the evidence above remains relevant, and destroys your claim.

And why does it have to be given by John? All scripture is inspired of God and was produced by his holy spirit acting upon holy men of God; it is all his word. This supposed rule of yours could not be truly a scriptural grammatical rule if it applied only to the words penned through one particular holy man of God, and not the others also.

#56 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:52 AM

Two proper nouns separated by kai with the pronoun referring to the nearest antecedent.

#57 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 01:16 PM

Two proper nouns separated by kai with the pronoun referring to the nearest antecedent.


This is absurd. You have now defined the construction so that only passages that fit your supposed rule would be eligible for consideration. If I presented a passage with two proper nouns separated by kai, but where the pronoun refers to the more distant antecedent, you would say it is ineligible, as it is not the same grammatical construction. So you are guaranteed to win the argument!

Clearly, this thread has become quite pointless.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 12 August 2012 - 01:16 PM.


#58 foudroyant

foudroyant

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 01:41 PM

Too bad you can't find another passage that supports your theory.

#59 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 03:15 PM

You're ignoring the point. Please stop and consider again what you've actually said. You've defined the "grammatical construction" (i.e. the filter which constrains which passages we can consider for whether your claimed rule holds true) as:

"two proper nouns separated by kai with the pronoun referring to the nearest antecedent"

and your rule, when applied to this construction, says that the pronoun refers to the nearest antecedent. In other words, you're limiting the passages we can consider, for whether your rule holds true, to those passages in which your rule holds true. Can't you see the absurdity of that? You've produced a tautology, which proves absolutely nothing.

You've also limited your rule to things written by John. Yet the whole of the NT is written in the same language, Greek, and has all one author, namely God, by his holy spirit acting upon his holy apostles and prophets. So it should all be relevant to consider. Despite my asking, you have given no justification for that limitation. Please do so.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 12 August 2012 - 03:28 PM.


#60 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 04:21 PM

Too bad you can't find another passage that supports your theory.


Ignoring only the last, absurd part of your "grammatical construction" definition (the one that limits it to cases which meet your claimed rule, and thus makes it a tautology), I have indeed found a passage that falsifies your theory. This passage has proper nouns separated by kai, with a following pronoun that does not refer to the nearest antecedent proper noun. What's more, it even comes in a scripture that was written by John, just as you required:

John 21:1 (BYZ) μετα ταυτα εφανερωσεν εαυτον παλιν ο ιησους τοις μαθηταις επι της θαλασσης της τιβεριαδος εφανερωσεν δε ουτως
John 21:2 (BYZ) ησαν ομου σιμων πετρος και θωμας ο λεγομενος διδυμος και ναθαναηλ ο απο κανα της γαλιλαιας και οι του ζεβεδαιου και αλλοι εκ των μαθητων αυτου δυο

John 21:1 (AV) After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise showed he himself.
John 21:2 (AV) There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

The proper nouns are the named disciples; they are separated by 'kai' ("and"), and followed by a singular pronoun with a matching antecedent proper noun. The pronoun is 'autou' ("his", i.e. "(of) him") at the end of verse 2. But clearly, in context we can see that the antecedent proper noun isn't any of:
  • "Zebedee", the nearest antecedent proper noun
  • "Nathanael", the nearest antecedent proper noun separated by 'kai' from an earlier antecedent proper noun
  • "Thomas called Didymus", likewise separated by 'kai' from an earlier proper noun
  • "Simon Peter", another antecedent proper noun.
Instead, the antecendent of 'autou' is clearly "Jesus", back in verse 1.

So even the narrowest non-tautological version of your claimed rule fails. You can only make it work by constraining your definition to the point of absurdity. If you really believe this supposed "rule" still justifies your claim about Jesus being the object of 'latreuw' in Rev 22:3, you are simply fooling yourself.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 13 August 2012 - 06:35 AM.
Corrected reference (John 21 not 20).





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users