We have already shown you this in the Greek.
Since you are so interested in the greek, let's try this one more time:
If you are right about
where Jesus was sitting,why don't we have Jesus καθίσας εν τω θρόνω του πατρός αὐτοῦ rather than Jesus καθίσας μετά του πατρός αὐτοῦ ?
Also, you said:
Give us your best argument why the genitive of both Theos and Jesus do not represent ownership of the singular Throne, which is also genitive, and resides in the very same verse.
Do you know why "throne" in this verse is in the genitive?
And again:
1) You claimed that
thronou was a genitive of possession. If this is true what case and noun is
epi governing, and why?
2) You claimed that a genitive indicates possession between two nouns, period. Why does NO GRAMMAR OF GREEK LIMIT THE GENITIVE TO THIS USE? ALL of them include possession as just ONE OF MANY possible uses.
3) You claimed that
kai links two whole sentences together here. Why are you disagreeing with EVERY GREEK GRAMMAR which states that the position of
kai matters
4) If you can read greek, why did you fail to produce in english letters the greek you were reading, and instead copy and paste the transliterated greek from the dictionary forms?
5) Why did you say that the participle is "both verb and adjective" (which merely defines participle) as opposed to stating what is is doing here? Because here it is a substantive which is distinct from the noun
to arnio.
6) you stated that "thronou" is a genitive of possession. What this means then is that the lamb is a possession of the throne, i.e. "the throne's lamb" or "the lamb of the throne" because the genitive in a possessive construction is the possessor. So what does it mean to you that under your grammatical analysis the lamb is owned by the throne? This would both make the lamb and the throne distinct, and make the lamb subordinate to the throne.
