Search results

Sorry, I meant 1472. Dyslexia setting in. tsml

The point is that there are senses of "father" and "brother" which are not mutually exclusive. So your syllogism cannot be valid across all possible definitions of these words. Can you not see this?

See post 1427 above.

And I did. My Dad is my biological father and also my brother in Christ.

Beats me!

Well, I have explained my thinking as best I can. Here, and in my OP, which I urge you to go back and reread. There are a billion Trinitarians on the planet. A syllogism as simple as yours, if valid across all possible definitions of "father" and "brother," would have stopped Trinitarianism...

Father doesn't MEAN brother, and brother doesn't MEAN father. But father and brother have multiple definitions, including nonbiological ones (like Heb. 2:11). So when you said there is a sense in which God is our father (let's call that sense "God the Father") and in which Jesus is our...

I don't claim that syllogisms in logic need explanation IF THEY ARE VALID. I claim that yours was INvalid due to the non-biological sense of your P1 and P2, and needed explanation as to the intended meaning of P1and P2. (Example: you and I are brothers in Christ. My Dad, rest his soul, was...

I don't agree. We get "plus" and "plural" from Latin, not Greek.

And what would those be?

Once again I am not following you. I say and you bring morality into the mix. Where are you going here?

I'm not following you here. Seems as though you are saying "Whatever God is, Jesus is not that." Well, that begs the question.

To be fair, neither P1 nor P2 are meant in a biological sense. Deriving the conclusion that Jesus is not God from these two non-biologcal propositions needs a bit of explanation. It's easy to see that biologically speaking, the same person cannot be both your father and your brother. But we...

If Luke accurately quoted him here, Peter seems to have thought so. Yet in Acts 5:32 Peter apparently separates the two (again, if Luke quoted him accurately). Are we to interpret the latter verse as an expression of Peter's belief that God sending the Holy Spirit is equivalent to God sending...

Interesting that you go with "declared" in this verse. The 1978 version of the NIV did too. Let’s look at Rom. 1:4 in the 1978 edition of the NIV: and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared (ὁρισθέντος) with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ...

Would you be quoting THIS Don Stewart?

Why do our prayers need mediation? What's wrong with approaching the Chief Grand Poohbah in prayer directly (whether or not we add "In Jesus's name" as a closing)?

When used with an inanimate object such as a rod or a sword, ἐν is surely signifying an instrumental dative. How could it be otherwise?

No, I mean instrumental dative. As in Luke 22:49 and 1 Cor. 4:21.

But there are lots of instances of instrumental dative following ἐν. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK PREPOSITIONS