[Colossians]

The OP, and post #38, stand unrefuted.

The logic and structural analysis I have used is water-tight, and clearly and eloquently explained.

The readers will have been able to follow the reasoning, and that was my goal: I have no intent of converting my opponents, for they simply will not submit to the truth. Rather, as always, I simply relish the opportunity to use my opponents as a springboard to promulgate the truth to the objective, unbiased visitors to the thread, visitors who may not have yet come across this issue.

Having said that my opponents will not submit to the truth, I am nonetheless aware that they have become less sure of themselves on this issue - that I have destabilised their confidence. So whilst I have no realistic intention of converting them to the proper exposition of the passage, I nevertheless always intend to unsettle them emotionally, and that I have done: they will be forever pricked in their conscience on the passage with regard to both the logic and grammar issues raised, and I am quite sure that, if they ever involve themselves in the issue again, it will be only for a fleeting visit: they will quickly move on to another issue simply because what I have pointed out to them will haunt their conscience.

I have now fully finished with this thread, and will not be revisting it. Anyone wishing to discuss the issue, can send me private message.

[themuzicman]

The logic and structural analysis I have used is water-tight, and clearly and eloquently explained.

And wrong, for reasons already shown. OP refuted, all points in post #38 already refuted.

Your errors and ignorance are exposed to any who would read them. Nothing more needs to be said.

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by Colossians

I have never lost a debate (in all my years of theology debating) and this is no exception.

You have lost every debate you have ever entered, and this is no exception. Your delusions of adequacy are keeping you blind, deaf, and dumb.