On Mon, 07 May 2001 17:54:54 +0300 Kimmo Huovila writes: > dixonps@juno.com wrote: > > > > > So, he is really saying, to use your lingo above, when 'they do > > Y,' 'they do X.' But, X is not possible; therefore, neither is Y. > > There is nothing in the grammar to favor a logic that if X is not > possible, neither is Y. The text says nothing of what follows from > an impossibility of X. Kimmo: Let's look at the logic of the text. Let Z = those who have once been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and fallen away (4-6a); Let Y = the same are renewed to repentance; Let X = the Son of God is crucified again and put Him to open shame. The argument can then be put together as: If Z, then not Y (6:4-6a). This is necessarily a true statement (on the assumption of Z), because Y cannot be true. Why not? Because, if Y is true, then X is necessarily true, that is, if Y then X (6:6b-c). But X is false (Christ cannot be crucified again - though this is not actually stated in the passage, it hardly needs to be and is an assumed dogma). So, if the assumption that Y is true leads to a contradiction, then the assumption is false, and its contradiction, not Y, is true. The whole argument then is along these lines: statement of the impossibility of renewing to repentance those who once been enlightened ... and have fallen away (6:4-6a), followed by a proof by contradiction (6:6b-c). This explains taking the present participles ANASTAUROUNTAS and PARADIGMATIZONTAS causally. Paul Dixon --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu