Um..extrapolation isn't lying.
You didn't extrapolate, you told a porky. You said, "your point is that anything prior to 1897 MUST be dismissed as insignificant - including all the church fathers." I made no such "point". It's a case of blatant dishonesty.
If I want my words "extrapolated" I'll ask you, ok. It won't be anytime soon because what you call "extrapolating", everyone else would call "twisting".
What is the foundation? You reply by citing a verse:
That's the verse in ambiguity here. The challenge is to INTERPRET the verse, not to REPEAT the verse. Believe it or not, I can get a copy of the verse on my own. Let's cut to the chase. You were give four questions. You didn't provide clear answers to all four.
That's what a moving target does. He can always address some of the questions at any time. But to answer them ALL together at once exposes the contradictions. Conclusion: Non-responsive on your part. As predicted.
It's not my fault that you cannot understand the plain meaning of scripture. But if you want me to spell it out for you....
(1) the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
(2) God
(3) One
(4) The same foundation
OK?
Read Rom 15. It was REGIONAL. (Apparently Paul didn't think it was a silly question).
And where in Rom 15 does Paul say 2 or more foundations are laid on top of each other?
Oh that's right, nowhere. So yes your question was silly.
He is NOT only described as the cornerstone.
Yes, he is in Eph 2:20. That is what the verse says. To make it say Christ is also the rest of the foundation, you have to "read it into" the text. A classic case of eisegesis.
Again, I named 7 overlapping roles that David assigned to the Lord. Here's another example:
"They drank [Living Water] from the spiritual Rock that accompanied them, and the Rock was Christ".
He is BOTH the Rock AND the Living Water AND the Living Bread that came down from heaven. Again, don't chastise Paul for placing Christ at the center and forefront of all things. Your issue is with Paul, not with me.
Non sequitur. It does not follow that because God or anyone else has multiple descriptions in other unrelated scriptures, that here in Eph 2:20 it must mean Christ is both cornerstone and foundation, when it only states he is the cornerstone. Yet another fallacy of yours exposed.
Again, show me a grammar book that so establishes. That's a standard role for the genitive - and even your own scholars did not deny that fact.
Your example of the word 'foundation' is poor grammar. To point out which builder laid a particular foundation you wouldn't naturally say "That is the foundation of Bartlett and Son". That is unnatural and confusing to say the least. If you wanted to be clearly understood you would say "That is the foundation LAID by Bartlett and Son". The same as Paul would have written if that was what he meant.
Um...extrapolation isn't lying.
You said "He admits that Paul's other verses on "foundation" contradict cessationism". In truth he said nothing of the sort, not even if you "extrapolate" (twist) his words. You were lying.
Hohner made no mention of cessationism. Nor is he known for being a cessationist.
Uh..er..why does he "defend" his position by claiming that Paul suddenly changed his meaning/usage of "foundation"?
Where exactly does Hoehner say Paul "suddenly changed" his usage of the word "foundation" in Eph 2:20?". Oh wait..don't tell me.....you were "extrapolating". Yep, we all know what that means.
Remember it's not just Hoehner who agrees with me on Eph 2:20, the vast majority of modern Greek scholars side with MY reading of the verse, not yours. All authoritative sources.
Let's be adults here - no need for dancing.
No need for lying either.
Except the CONTEXT begins at 14:1 addressed to the whole congregation.
You clearly have no understanding of hermeneutics (why does that not surprise me). Near context takes precedence over wider context. Hermeneutics 101.
Already addressed. Talk about ignoring the context!
All you did was quote the verse, you made no comment on it! Tell us what you think it means then.
Um..er... and maturity is one of His criteria. See
numbers 12:6-8.
Um...er....there is no mention of maturity in that passage.
Logically impossible based on several facts indicated in the text.
You don't think the Corinthians were spiritually immature? Then let me take you to...
1 Cor 3:1-3 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh.
Oh I don't just accuse them. I don't just hurl unfounded accusations (like some people on this forum are fond of doing), I actually ARGUE my case. I EXPOSE obvious fallacies in their reasonings.
But isn't it strange that virtually no scholars agree with your theories. You would think if your ideas had any merit at least some scholars would have latched onto them and be advocating them. Why do you think that might be? Let me give you a clue......perhaps it has something to do with the fact your theories have been looked at before and quickly dismissed because they have proved to be exegetically bogus.
Your assessment here is 100% backwards. Cost them their jobs? Let me enlighten you on how it works. The people who lose their jobs (and/or their very lives) are the ones who buck the institution. Those who kiss up to it - even at the cost of bad hermeneutics - are the ones who KEEP their jobs. That's one reason it took 1500 years for the Reformation to introduce some positive changes.
And how ironic it is that a few posts back here you were hailing them as being "authoritative sources" because you thought they agreed with you. And now when we discover they don't, you now reject them all as now part of a giant cessationist conspiracy theory. Oh the hypocrisy.
And I have a whole thread demonstrating that Paul defined maturity (coincided maturity rather) in terms of a proliferation of the gifts (consistent with Num 12:6-8). Since the Corinthians were immature, they did NOT proliferate in the gifts. Six key posts on that thread:
Post 7, and
Post 33, and
Post 46, and
Post 47, and
post 52, and
post 58. I'll even grant that the Corinthians featured in a full DIVERSITY of gifts (that's the nature of apostolic churches) - as an assembly they didn't LACK any of the gifts - but certainly did not have a superabundance of the gifts, defined in terms of frequency of manifestation, premium-grade Direct Revelation, and so on.
Thanks, but knowing your fondness for "extrapolating" and wholesale engagement in exegetical and logical fallacies, I don't think I can bothered spending more hours sifting through dozens more errors.