I don’t think your angry. Your a likeable person, you are passionate about what you believe in which I respect and admire. I am like that myself and more, my words are direct, to the point of being abrasive and hurtful. I would like to apologize if I ruffled your feelings.

I like linguistics too. It was what I intended to take up in college, but something else happened. I am still fascinated by it and spends a lot of time reading about it, its one of my hobbies. Interestingly, I am about to start doing a machine translation software, studying syntax as well as building up word databases of 4 languages. So we do share a lot of interests.

Now going back to your other comments.

-
“This is both true and false. While those theories you’ve mentioned flow from TG, neither LFT or MP use transformational phrase structures. In fact, LFG was a response to syntactic tranformations posited in the 60s and 70s.”

All generative grammars aim to come up with a set of rules or principles distinguishing well-formed expressions of any natural language, and that most rules or principles is not the result of communicative function but are innate. Your right that LFG is not transformational (the mutual constraints of its 7 structures explains what is a well-formed expression), but your wrong since it is a generative grammar still. MP is both transformational (it has merge and move) and generative.

-
“Here’s a start on that. Syntacticians who reject D-structure: Brensan, Kroeger (LFG), Van Valin, La Parola, (RRG), and Chomsky (as of MP, anyway). To add to that are Halliday’s systemics, and just about every other fuctional grammar theory in existence. Being that you suggested I read RRG, I surprised you don’t know that. Phrase Drive Head Structure also rejects a deep structure.”

I know that these syntacticians reject D-structure. I also do not believe in D-structure. What I was waiting for you to mention are syntacticians who say that it is impossible to combine “simple sentences into one complex sentence through subordination”, whether under MP, LFG or RRG.

-
“I’ll concede part of your point two only because you words definitely sounded like a description of deep structure. But if you’re going to maintain your preference to RRG as it sounds like you did, you’re still on shaky grounds when you make such claims since RRG is a WYSIWYG grammar (WYSIWYG – how’s that for jargon!).”

Show me how shaky in RRG my claim that simple sentences can be combined into one complex sentence through subordination.

-
““quite” only adds emphasis to clearly, if anything making it stronger.”

I conceed if that is what you mean. “Quite” can mean also “moderate extent or degree”, but that is discernable only with the tone of speech. Also, English is my 3rd language, so I don’t have a perfect grasp of it like a native speaker.

-
“This is a fascinating false dichotomy. You appear to assume that we have everything Jesus ever said (I doubt it). It also ignores some people’s belief that Jesus’ knowledge of his own deity was part of the kenosis (i.e. Bishop NT Wright, Dr. Herbert Bateman, etc.).”

Your right that we don’t have everything that Jesus said, its even mentioned in the Bible (John 21:25). But all that were written were enough for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15, John 5:39) that’s why they are beneficial for setting things straight and for reproving (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that’s why no one should add or remove from it. For this reason, Christological kenosis is a corruption by trinitarians laid and imposed on the Bible. It is an interpretation distinct from the Bible, to reconcile his humanity with his supposed divinity upon incarnation. These people believing in Christological kenosis are not to be believed for their beliefs are against the Bible.

-
“No. Those words were written several decades after Jesus’ death. At best they were part of the memory of the apostles still living when the gospels were written. At their worst, they are part of an oral tradition past down through a few generations. Which one of those possibilities is true, I don’t know (I would like to think that its the former rather than the latter, but that’s not my field of study. Anyway, to say the least, nothing is shattered.”

So you don’t believe that these are Jesus’ actual words. This is also not my field of study but I would like to suppose that what was written was Jesus actual words and not mere mental recollection or oral tradition. Although we have no direct proof, we have indirect proofs of that: Jews have writing tradition even before Jesus’ time. One of Jesus 12 disciples is literate (Levi), others might also be. Jesus is considered a prophet, so his words will be treated as coming from YHWH, so they will be written in the original language that Jesus spoke, especially if they are dogmatic. This theory that his words were written several decades after Jesus death is based on the dating of Greek textual witnesses.

-
“No its not. I’d suggest reading a little more of 1 Corinthians, particularly 9. Yes there is a textual issue there, but I’d be curious about how you would explain it, particularly with a historical reason, rather than a theological one.”

Is that verse 9 or chapter 9 of 1st Corinthians? Please put the exact chapter and verse.
-

I totally agree with you that blogging and writing takes up so much time. And since you are very clear about the amount of time you spend studying the Trinity and your priorities, I will not bug you anymore about theological questions, only linguistic ones. You sound like someone who can give a good feedback on Greek grammar, so I’ll let you know when I am finished with a draft, which would have Greek in it. Thanks for wishing me luck. I wish you and your wife good opportunities in life as well. Cheers.

“Mike: it was easy for you to claim that my description is “methodologically flawed” but I sensed you found it hard to prove and support such claim.”

No, I didn’t care to suppose such a claim. I don’t like writing long comments. My time is generally better used studying Koine Syntax than it is staying up al night because someone is wrong on the internet.

“Generative grammar itself includes TG, GPSG, LFG & CG with Minimalist program (MP) as a subtype of TG. Each of them has their own specific and different methodologies and terms in explaining generation, movement, transformation, phrasal structures, etc., if ever they have any comparable treatment of such at all or have terms and concepts that are common at all.”

This is both true and false. While those theories you’ve mentioned flow from TG, neither LFT or MP use transformational phrase structures. In fact, LFG was a response to syntactic tranformations posited in the 60s and 70s.

“So here’s your homework: specify which grammar framework and whose version you subscribe to and show me how from that framework my description is methodologically flawed. Show me what restrictions there are, if any, in combining simple sentences into one complex sentence through subordination in such framework. But if you really are keen on disproving my description, try using RRG (role and reference grammar), since it has a more universal theoretical foundation (thus sounder, leaner, more flexible and has more explanatory power) than generative grammar theories or framework, particularly Chomskyan grammar theories or TG. RRG has not been fully extended or researched on some areas of linguistic theory though so if you want, you can try to supplement it with a modified LFG (lexical functional grammar) or TG. And from that I will respond to you point by point.”

Actually I already do study both RRG & LFG. But I wouldn’t even consider taking up your challenge until you take up mine on Paul.

“You said that “that sort of ‘deep structure’ for such grammatical constructions has been rejected by a majority of linguists”. Yet you failed to cite and quote any published article, book or journal by even one linguist of any grammar theory that corroborates your claim that majority of linguists rejected constructing dependent clauses from simple sentences, so your claim in effect is vacuous, without any real substance. What you need to do to strengthen your arguments is to provide a proper citation of a linguist under a defined grammar framework and quote and explain what that linguist said, in relation to the impossibility of combining simple sentences through subordination.”

Here’s a start on that. Syntacticians who reject D-structure:
Brensan, Kroeger (LFG), Van Valin, La Parola, (RRG), and Chomsky (as of MP, anyway). To add to that are Halliday’s systemics, and just about every other fuctional grammar theory in existence. Being that you suggested I read RRG, I surprised you don’t know that. Phrase Drive Head Structure also rejects a deep structure.

I’ll concede part of your point two only because you words definitely sounded like a description of deep structure. But if you’re going to maintain your preference to RRG as it sounds like you did, you’re still on shaky grounds when you make such claims since RRG is a WYSIWYG grammar (WYSIWYG – how’s that for jargon!).

“Therefore, my description or analysis withstood your criticism, and until you are able to overcome the weaknesses of your counter-claims, it will stand.”

I wasn’t trying to make counter claims.

“It seems your not sure at all that Paul believe Jesus is God, you modified “clearly” with “quite”. But before I answer your comment, let’s have a short digress.”

“quite” only adds emphasis to clearly, if anything making it stronger.

“I need to point out to you that if what Paul said is different than what Jesus said, he has not remained in Jesus words, thus he is not a true disciple and has not known the truth. If he did say Jesus is a man and that the Father is the only God, then he is a true follower of Christ, a true Christian, not a pseudo-Christian like trinitarians. So which one is it?”

This is a fascinating false dichotomy. You appear to assume that we have everything Jesus ever said (I doubt it). It also ignores some people’s belief that Jesus’ knowledge of his own deity was part of the kenosis (i.e. Bishop NT Wright, Dr. Herbert Bateman, etc.).

“It’s clear to me now that you failed to totally engage my arguments, as you touched only about dependent clauses, never said a word about my stance that Jesus corrected those Jews, and redirected your comments instead to Apostle Paul’s supposed belief, which is a different topic.”

I didn’t answer your objects for a couple reasons: 1) I’m not a theologian. I’m a linguist. 2) I don’t have time. I work 40 hour a week to pay for my wife’s school and study is something I can only do in my spare time.

“I would like to point out to you that if you fail to disprove my claim that Jesus corrected the Jews about their understanding that he is equal with God or is a God, then you have shattered all Trinitarian claims that Jesus is God. Why? Because these very verses are Jesus actual words about himself.”

No. Those words were written several decades after Jesus’ death. At best they were part of the memory of the apostles still living when the gospels were written. At their worst, they are part of an oral tradition past down through a few generations. Which one of those possibilities is true, I don’t know (I would like to think that its the former rather than the latter, but that’s not my field of study. Anyway, to say the least, nothing is shattered.

“Thanks by the way for pointing me Fee’s book which could be a possible good material about trinitarian beliefs. Would be grateful if you can tell me other books which you think offers an excellent defense of Trinitarianism.”

You’re welcome, but I’m not the one to ask book, all those books that you think I lean on in my trinitarian arguments don’t exist in my house. I don’t read books on the trinity. I don’t have time. I’m too busying paying for my wife’s grad school and studying dead languages. The only book I can think of off the cuff would be Larry Hurado’s Jesus as Lord. Oh, one more. If you can find it, Dr. Michael Heiser’s dissertation on the two thrones in heaven gives evidence for trinity or at least the multiplicity of the Godhead based on OT texts and ancient eastern literature.

“Your claim about Paul’s beliefs is against what Paul himself explicitly wrote, a contradiction between you and Paul.”

No its not. I’d suggest reading a little more of 1 Corinthians, particularly 9. Yes there is a textual issue there, but I’d be curious about how you would explain it, particularly with a historical reason, rather than a theological one.

Finally, I really don’t know what to do with the end of your post. At the very least, I appreciate your prayers, even though I believe them to be misguided. But hey, prayer is prayer, right?

Now on to your comment:

“Admit it, I suspect my arguments are having inroads into you, and the thing that is holding you back from
renouncing this false Trinitarian belief are these Trinitarian books which you hold as defenses.”

Nope, I don’t read trinitarian books. I read books on verbal aspect, language typologies, relative clauses, lexical semantics, etc. But I don’t read books on the trinity. By the way, though, its both possible and impossible to convince me of your view. I do keep my mind open. But not when others are telling me I’m wrong, only when I’m studying issues myself – which I’m not. I’ll get to it eventually, but its not a priority right now.

“I just don’t disagree for the sake of disagreeing”

I like to call it “agreeing to disagree.”

Anyway, I also don’t care for arguing with people. And I hope I didn’t sound offensive or angry. I’m not. Good luck on your book. If/when it comes to fruition, let me know. I might have time for such books by then.

As for the length of my comments which seems as lengthy as monographs, no, I don’t think comments are monographs and vice versa, i’ts just that a comment needs to be long enough to counter all issues raised by a previous commenter. I just don’t disagree for the
sake of disagreeing; I provide the reasons and details why I disagree, and that’s why my counter comments are
informative, helpful, and provide a really good opportunity for those interested in their refutation. I bet you like its content-rich style, it’s just that your on the other side of the fence. I do not require you to do a monograph length comment, just go on post those smallish comments your time allows and I will go on posts in whatever length and detail I think refutes a counter-claim. In a similar vein, sorry to disappoint you but I will not have a “tiny” post on Paul if I have to refute a 700-page book. And if you do not have the time to refute it, pass it on to someone who can and may have the time.

Admit it, I suspect my arguments are having inroads into you, and the thing that is holding you back from
renouncing this false Trinitarian belief are these Trinitarian books which you hold as defenses. I will read Fee’s book, but its refutation is
in a different post of this blog. I myself am writing “the” book against Trinitarianism and will endeavor to truly understand, quote and engage these books. Making a book is a long tedious process, so if ever I hit an argument in one of these books that I don’t understand, especially if dealing with intricacies of Greek grammar, I will give you a shout to clarify things for me. I know your real interest is really Greek linguistics and not theology, you said that yourself.

Thanks by the way for pointing me Fee’s book which could be a possible good material about trinitarian beliefs. Would be grateful if you can tell me other books which you think offers an excellent defense of Trinitarianism.

I will keep on the back of my head your advice for me to post a comment on Fee, and will promptly notify you once I am able to post a refutation of his arguments.
But first, gotta find that book. Its not in the 2 South East Asian countries I went to and also in this country I reside. Until then, see ya later.

I will say that I do read plenty of books from numerous perspectives. But until you either say that you’ve already read Fee’s book on Pauline Christology or say that you’re going to read it, I won’t be back here. That is to say, since I already read multiple prespectives, do you? Will you read Fee’s book and interact with it? And if you don’t want to then you’re in a sticky position considering your desire for me to read other views when you won’t do it yourself. So when you finish those 700 pages, write your little post on Paul. Dialog with Fee and then I’ll comment again. Until then, I simply don’t have time. I have essays and papers to write and more than enough to read. Those things have a higher priority on my time than stilling at a computer all day and all night because I think that “someone is wrong on the internet.”