So, a copilot might have 20 fewer hours in the cockpit than the pilot, and has but to take three days of flight simulator evaluation required to make captain. (I know such a case exactly at Philippine Airlines). But there is a practical equality in skill, otherwise, the man could not be the copilot, because he would at any moment be required to act EXACTLY at CAPTAIN skill-level if the captain has a heart attack during the flight.
So, the real issue that we are interested in is this. How many hours less does Mary have on a Cross dying for anyone's sins than the Savior?
How many hours did Mary spend in the heart of the earth?
Was Mary the Firstfruits of them that slept, being the first man (it had to be an “Adam”; it couldn't be an "Eve") ever to rise from among the dead without the possibility of ever dying again.
In what particulars of Redemption can Mary's skills, qualities, attributes or power come close enough to those of the Lord Jesus Christ, to make the pilot — copilot differences a reasonable analogy?
And the proponents of its adoption specifically state that "co-" is in the sense of the Latin cum, meaning with--NOT "equal to."
It may be the point of SOME argument, though it's hard to know how any "argument" can be had if the topic is going to be changed without announcement, much less mutual agreement.
But it is not the point of the argument you made and which we addressed, to wit, "co" denotes "equal".
Do me the kindness of paying attention: I adduced "Co-pilot" for a very limited purpose. It was NOT to discuss how Mary fit into the economy of salvation, and certainly not to say that she fit into it as a co-pilot fits into the economy of flaying a plane. I adduced it because I took your contention seriously enough to listen to it and to respond to it. And your contention was as I have said. So one example to the contrary sufficed to show that the contention was incorrect. And we offered more than one example.
No more rope-a-dope. YOU made the contention about what "co-" denotes. WE heard you and responded. Now the point you raised seems to be being swept down the memory hole, and our answer is being wrenched out of its context, YOUR context, and being woven into an attempt to argue against us by the frank and open misinterpretation of what we said by applying the matter of one argument to quite another argument.
The "drive them nuts" agenda rears its ugly head. But I'm not playing.
Great points.