Jaltus
June 25th 2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=132120&action=showthread) by IronMetro in the thread The Fictional "Smart's Rule" (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=6305)
Well I'm sure some would like it, but that type of reply would take significantly more time than I care to apply to it. The fact remains that the two counter examples Rob gave to the John 20:28 construction totally fail, so that is the real issue.
I honestly see no reason to refrain from forming a comphrehensive rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's critique. You had previously claimed it to have been refuted elsewhere. Certainly the homework is done for you ergo a quick line by line should be reaching near completion.
Yes, many are patently awaiting a full response to the critique. That is, of course, why it was given it's own thread.
We aren't rushing you. Take your time and give it the attention one would need to convince a skeptical audience.
8<
It does not REQUIRE it, but it is strongly indicated by such. Further so by this verse:
Mar 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.
See the post previously made by Old Shepherd. The glory is that of the Son as well. See also Jn17:5..cf..Rev5:13. An equality of glory in fact. I also made the pertinent reference to Harris on the titular nature of the {whole}phrase "Our God and Savior". Your labeling it as a "personal name" is opinion at best.
Might I take this time to ask why it would bother you to call Christ "theos" in this instance whereas it doesn't in those areas where the application is indisputable?
Call them obscure if you want, but that does not make them any less valid.
They are obscure for a reason. Soc's point being, they won't do well in convincing us of top-notch scholarship.
I don't need to do this. I was simply making the point that I can.
It would aid your case to employ those versions made with the awarence of Sharp's Rule in mind. This shows a difference of scholarly opinion (from the standpoint of bible versions) as opposed to mere ignorance.
Actually, the glory that Christ comes in is the glory of his Father.
Mark 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.
So yes, you have the glory of the great God appearing, not the person of the great God. So either Jesus is appearing with God the Father's glory as Mark states, or the person of Jesus is not appearing at all and it is only his glory.
Or rather Christ {who is God} is appearing in His own glory as well as that of His Father's. It is given to them in equality (e.g. Rev5:13 etc.). Your are assuming Unitarianism in that the application of the word "God" to Christ must in turn exclude a reference to the Father. Not so.
Well that is nice, but that doesn't change the simple reality of it.
And labeling your view as "the reality" concerning a passage under dispute is not impressive either.
God bless
Well I'm sure some would like it, but that type of reply would take significantly more time than I care to apply to it. The fact remains that the two counter examples Rob gave to the John 20:28 construction totally fail, so that is the real issue.
I honestly see no reason to refrain from forming a comphrehensive rebuttal to Mr. Bowman's critique. You had previously claimed it to have been refuted elsewhere. Certainly the homework is done for you ergo a quick line by line should be reaching near completion.
Yes, many are patently awaiting a full response to the critique. That is, of course, why it was given it's own thread.
We aren't rushing you. Take your time and give it the attention one would need to convince a skeptical audience.
8<
It does not REQUIRE it, but it is strongly indicated by such. Further so by this verse:
Mar 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.
See the post previously made by Old Shepherd. The glory is that of the Son as well. See also Jn17:5..cf..Rev5:13. An equality of glory in fact. I also made the pertinent reference to Harris on the titular nature of the {whole}phrase "Our God and Savior". Your labeling it as a "personal name" is opinion at best.
Might I take this time to ask why it would bother you to call Christ "theos" in this instance whereas it doesn't in those areas where the application is indisputable?
Call them obscure if you want, but that does not make them any less valid.
They are obscure for a reason. Soc's point being, they won't do well in convincing us of top-notch scholarship.
I don't need to do this. I was simply making the point that I can.
It would aid your case to employ those versions made with the awarence of Sharp's Rule in mind. This shows a difference of scholarly opinion (from the standpoint of bible versions) as opposed to mere ignorance.
Actually, the glory that Christ comes in is the glory of his Father.
Mark 8:38 For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels.
So yes, you have the glory of the great God appearing, not the person of the great God. So either Jesus is appearing with God the Father's glory as Mark states, or the person of Jesus is not appearing at all and it is only his glory.
Or rather Christ {who is God} is appearing in His own glory as well as that of His Father's. It is given to them in equality (e.g. Rev5:13 etc.). Your are assuming Unitarianism in that the application of the word "God" to Christ must in turn exclude a reference to the Father. Not so.
Well that is nice, but that doesn't change the simple reality of it.
And labeling your view as "the reality" concerning a passage under dispute is not impressive either.
God bless