TonyN

What I find very funny is that you make the case as did jgibson000 that agreement in gender and number was necessary.
But now that I have proven my side to be the correct side you come up with a total switch in stance and state:
"Tony, the terms holies and holies of holies in Hebrews 9.2-3 are subject complements. Their agreement with the subject in gender and number is irrelevant."

Ben, please, I wasn't born yesterday.

In my hard copy of "The Complete Biblical Library" it has it thus:

Heb 9:2 For the tabernacle (singular feminine) is constructed, the front part (singular feminine) (in which was, besides the lampstand (singular feminine), the table (singular feminine) also, and the showbread (plural masculine), which is termed the holy place (singular feminine)."
Heb 9:3 Now after the second curtain (singular neuter) is a tabernacle (singular feminine) which is termed the holy (singular feminine) of holies (genitive plural),

I am correct.

Ben C Smith

I never made that case, Tony. You are confusing me with someone else.

My case was that the chambers of the tabernacle are always described with the neuter in Greek. The adjective is used substantively when it describes the chambers of the tabernacle.

I take exception to you putting words in my mouth.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Just for you, Tony , here is a screenshot of the morphological info from CCAT at Hebrews 9.2:



And here is the info for Hebrews 9.3:



Finally, here is the info from my BibleWorks 5 program at Hebrews 9.2:



(Hebrews 9.3 comes out the same in BW 5.)

Both of these parsed texts render our word of the week in these verses as a neuter plural. If you insist on using parsed texts as your only argument, then my parsed texts are an argument, too, and both arguments crawl off into the Serengeti somewhere to die.

What I would like to see you do is actually mount an argument for your reading. By way of reminder, here is my argument:

The chambers of the tabernacle are always referred to (in Greek) with the neuter adjective for holy (or holies).

You can see the neuter being used, for example, all over the LXX (which you bizarrely reject, for some reason, despite the fact that the NT authors themselves quote from it verbatim left and right) and all over the book of Hebrews (which I trust you do not reject); see Hebrews 9.8, 12, 24, 25; 10.19; 13.11.

Furthermore, I can offer a good reason for this fact. It is because the adjective is being used as a substantive, which is a common function of the neuter (consider the example of the common substantive ταυτα, for instance). This is why, for example, the genitive αγιων in Hebrews 9.3 does not modify (and therefore agree with) anything nearby; it is being used as a noun.

Now, what is your argument? Besides the argument from authority, which I can match with mere screenshots, why do you think these words in Hebrews 9.2-3 are feminine?

Also, as I hinted in my last post, I would appreciate it if you would briefly review my argument so far on this thread, confirm that I nowhere argued as follows...:

...and retract your statement.

Thanks.

Ben.

DBT

Well, in Judaism 'king of kings' is also used in referance to God, whose name may not be said. But considering the context of the verse in the NT, I'd be inclined to say that you are right, provisionally.

But as the 'Word' of God, the ascended Christ is supposed to be eternal, and "one with the father" - otherwise saying "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see" - would be false. So I don't see how it changes anything.

TonyN

Dear DBT, I do not disagree with you that the ascended Christ is eternal. It is just that the Bible never uses aionios to describe the "eternalness" of the ascended Christ.

I may be causing you to bite off more than you can chew, but I'm going to take a chance here.

Saul, on the road to Damascus was not able to actually see the ascended Christ due to the powerful glorious light emanating from Him. Saul/Paul was blinded. No man has seen or can see (at least in these mortal bodies) the glorious, brilliant Christ as our 1 Timothy 6:16 text shows.

Anyway, now that we have settled it that this section is speaking of Christ and not God, the Father, we are able to go on to the phrase that relates directly to Christ: "to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!"

Why should the Greek word aiwnion be eternal in this verse? Will there be to Christ "honor and power everlasting" (KJV)? or will there be to Christ "honor and power eonian"? (CLNT)

Christ will have honor and power as it pertains to the coming eons.

There is coming the day when all sovereignty, authority and power will be nullified. There is also coming the day when Christ gives up the kingdom to God and quits reigning and subjects Himself to God per the verses below:

1Co 15:22-28 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified." (23) Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;" (24) thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power." (25) For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. (26) The last enemy is being abolished: death. (27) For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him." (28) Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)"

Also, the Bible gives the limitation of the duration of Christ's reigning:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of this world became our Lord's and His Christ's, and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!"

The eons of the eons are the final two eons to come being the 1000 year eon and the new earth eon.

Since we know He will not reign eternally but quit reigning (as the Corinthian text proves), this proves that "eons of the eons" does not mean "eternally."

This should hopefully lay to rest Matt Slicks wrong assertion that aionion should be "eternal" in the passage under discussion.

Peace,
Tony

DBT

Ah.... right.....Thank you Tony.

As the "eternal Word of god" the one claiming - "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" "Before Abraham was born, I am!" and "I and the Father are One" and - “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men… He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.” - As suposedly being both eternal and inseperable from "God the Father" how can the ascended Christ be said to quit reigning? Is this a retirement plan for a particular aspect of God?

If not, and as suggested by John 13:3, it can be translated to mean "honor and power everlasting"


The corinthian text only appears to go far as the second advent of Christ when he resurrcts his 'own' - thus 'defeating' physical death.

"Nor does the Father cease to reign, when he gives it to the Son; neither the Son, when he delivers it to the Father: but the glory which he had before the world began"....John 13:3.

In this context it seems that "Eons of the eons" can be seen as "eternal."

TonyN

The Bible knows no such idea as described above.

This was not meant by Jesus to state that Jesus was the Father. When Christ was on the earth the Father's voice was heard from the heavens "This is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased."

Here is the context:
Joh 14:7-13 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And henceforth you know Him and have seen Him." (8) Philip is saying to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us." (9) Jesus is saying to him, "So much time I am with you, and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, 'Show us the Father'? (10) Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The declarations which I am speaking to you I am not speaking from Myself. Now the Father, remaining in Me, He is doing His works." (11) Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me; yet if not, believe Me because of the works themselves." (12) Verily, verily, I am saying to you, he who is believing in Me, the works which I am doing he also will be doing, and greater than these will he be doing, for I am going to the Father." (13) And whatever you should be requesting in My name, this I will be doing, that the Father should be glorified in the Son."

If Jesus were LITERALLY the Father, how could He be going TO the Father, of Whom Jesus said "Our Father, which art in Heaven."

And did not Jesus state after He arose from the tomb:
"I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God" (John 20:17), just 6 chapters after the one you referenced?

If Jesus literally is the Father, if He literally is GOD, how can He tell the disciples that He is ascending TO THEIR Father and TO THEIR God?

In the John 14 chapter which you reference in which Jesus said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," this was so in that Christ had God's spirit residing within him and it was God's spirit which was doing the works of miracles, works of grace etc.

Yes, this is true. But it does not prove eternalness. I believe it was Christ that walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day since He is the physical representation and word of God.

Yes, this is true. But what does that mean? That is the question. Here is something to think about:

Joh 17:21-23 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me." (22) And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One, (23) I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in one, and that the world may know that Thou dost commission Me and dost love them according as Thou dost love Me."

Jesus and the Father are one in the same understanding that the disciples would be one. It does not mean that the disciples are THE SAME BEING. And neither does it mean that Jesus and the Father are THE SAME BEING. The Father is an invisible intangible spirit filling heaven and earth. Jesus, on the other hand was sent to this earth by the Father "God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son . . . (John 3:16) and "1Ti 1:15 ". . . Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners . . . ." Jesus is always localized. God is everywhere.


Boy, you sure don't make it easy, LOL!
1Co 8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him."

Do you notice in the above verse how that the source of all is God, the Father but the CHANNEL through Whom all is is Jesus Christ who is not called "God" nor "the Father" in the above verse?
So, how are we to take the John 1:3-9 since Jesus is not God, the invisible Deity Who fills heaven and earth? It that Christ was the word. He was God's mouthpiece, if you will, which spoke all into existence. But the word is not God for it is said to be "with" or "pros" (in Greek meaning "toward") God.





1 Corinthians 15:22-28 is about three classes to be vivified or made alive beyond the reach of death:
1st class: Christ
2nd class: those who are Christ's
3rd class: the consummation class

The consummation class is subjected to Christ AFTER all sovereignty, authority and power are annulled, death is abolished and Christ gives up the kingdom to His God and Father and quits reigning.

Those who are Christ's class come into the subjection to Christ long long before those things occur.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, within the new paradign shift God will continue to reign but will do so IN all mankind (1 Cor.15:28) and so there will no longer be a need for an outward intermediary such as Christ.

No eon is eternal. The Bible says they all end. Therefore the final two eons which are the greatest of the eons that went before, A.K.A. "the eons of the eons" will one day end. Therefore it is impossible that they are eternal.

DBT

Perhaps so, but many Christians are under that belief.....

"He is God, the living and creative God of the universe, the word of the good God, who is God in his own right. The Word is different from all created things: he is the unique Word belonging only to the good Father.

By his eternal Word the Father created all things and implanted a nature in his creatures.'' St. Athanasius (293 –373)

Essentually your meaning when you said......

Nobody is claiming the Jesus the man was/is literally 'God The Father' but that Jesus was the mortal incarnation of the 'word' of God' - an eternal 'aspect' of the Father.
The 'risen' and 'transformed' Christ becoming once again the "Christ that walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day since He is the physical representation and word of God."

The very thing referred to in 1Tim 6 - "who alone possesses immortality" and "dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see."

Now if the original Greek text uses the word aionos to refer to the eternal aspect of Christ in this verse, as it appears it does, then it can only be taken to mean 'eternal' - in this instance.

"Nor does the Father cease to reign, when he gives it to the Son; neither the Son, when he delivers it to the Father: but the glory which he had before the world began"....John 13:3.

Or are you claiming that Yesuah Ben Joseph is the same as the 'Christ' that walked in the garden of Eden?

TonyN

Dear DBT, no disrespect but St. Athanasius is not inspired.

More "words of man's wisdom." The Bible knows no such theological idea of "an eternal 'aspect' of the Father."

I think you means "aionios"
Aionios does not refer to the eternal aspect of Christ in 1 Timothy 6: as if there were such a thing. Here is the actual quote:

1Ti 6:16 Who alone has immortality, making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!"
Notice that the honor and might is eonian, not immortality. Immortality is longer than that which pertains to the eons. That which is eonian is that which pertains to the eons. Since Christ's honor and might or power is eonian, it is that which is pertaining to the eons. Once He abdicates the throne and quits reigning and subjects Himself to God then His honor and might in that respect ends.

I don't know why you reference John 13:3. But anyway, the fact that Christ has been glorified with the glory He had before the world is with God "Joh 17:5 And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had before the world is with Thee" does not PROVE that Jesus will never quit reigning after He quits reigning. If He continues to reign after He quits reigning then why even say He quits reigning. That is contradictory.


DBT, Jesus is not GOD and is not the Father. He may carry the title God which is not a proper noun but is a descriptive title of office in that it's basic meaning is Subjector or Placer.

Jesus told His disciples that He was ascending to THEIR God and THEIR Father. This was a back door way of saying that Jesus is not THEIR God nor THEIR Father. When Jesus quits reigning and hands over the kingdom to God and the Father it means just that. It's over for Christ for reigning. There is not "eternal reign" for Christ. If there were it would mean Christ enver accomplishes the goal of subjecting all mankind to Him.

DBT

How are we to determine who is inspired, and who is not?

Isn't that what you were referring to, in principle, when you said "since He [Christ] is the physical representation and word of God" and was also the one walking in the garden of Eden?

Tony, who, or what is this verse referring to?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4).

Jesus said to the Pharisees—"Before Abraham was, I am." So it could be said that ''Christ,'' the projection of the immortal and eternal Spirit of God - the very being you claim walked the Garden of Eden, and John's ''all things were made by Him - became incarnate in ''Jesus.''


Perhaps it only appears contradictory when you conflate the concept of an eternal being with the incarnation, and human aspect of Jesus?

Otherwise if this verse is about Jesus the man, it would make no sense whatsoever to state "whom no man has seen, or can see."

"who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen,"