Does God have eyes?

“o theos mou” ia qualified to Jesus, because of 1 Cor 11:3
That’s not a grammatical argument.
and by being spoken to Jesus (article denotes a vocative).
If “o theos” can only refer to “the Father” then it couldn’t be used as a vocative for anyone else. Besides, you didn’t exclude vocatives. (Technically, nominative for vocative.) If “o theos” is always a reference to “the Father,” John could’ve used the true vocative “thee”.
It is further qualified by being associated with "o kyrios mou." Therefore it is completely unrelated to unqualified theos (e.g. as in Jn 1:1b or Jn 4;24).
You still haven’t provided a grammarian who supports your assertion about “qualified” vs “unqualified” uses. You don’t have support so this is nothing more than cherry-picking data.
As God is one, unqualified theos must always refer to the Father: otherwise "God" would not be one.
Flawed logic.
 
That’s not a grammatical argument.
A qualification doesn't have to be "grammatical." The "God of me" is clearly a qualification in the light of Jn 1:1b.

If “o theos” can only refer to “the Father” then it couldn’t be used as a vocative for anyone else.
See above and below.

Besides, you didn’t exclude vocatives. (Technically, nominative for vocative.) If “o theos” is always a reference to “the Father,” John could’ve used the true vocative “thee”.
And then we go back to the other John 10:34-46 qualification. Wherever used of a human being, theos is implicitly qualified in being understood as inferring a human /angelic agent of the Father. Thus there is never the slightest possibility afforded in scripture of confounding what is in heaven with what appears on earth; and which is why confounding theos as a reference to the Father, with theos as a reference to the man Jesus, or the Christ (which is a reference to the human mediator), is never warranted (cf. Rom 9:5).

You still haven’t provided a grammarian who supports your assertion about “qualified” vs “unqualified” uses. You don’t have support so this is nothing more than cherry-picking data.
I wouldn't expect a "grammarian" to become involved in human/heaven distinctions, as the issue isn't one of grammar, except is the special case where theos is applied to two distinguishable entities in heaven itself, as in Jn 1:1, which is a frequent topic for grammarians.

Flawed logic.
Not at all. The subordinate never usurps the place of the one at the head of the hierarchy. Only if you posit a communist God could the logic be flawed, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest a communist model of God (cf. Jn 1:1b, 1 Cor 11:3. ch 15. etc).
 
Last edited:
A qualification doesn't have to be "grammatical."
If you are claiming that your argument is based on grammar, it does. You have consistently claimed that you were making a grammatical argument.
The "God of me" is clearly a qualification in the light of Jn 1:1b.
You don’t have a grammatical reason for excluding “qualified” usages of “o theos”. You are refusing to address this fact.
See above.
You didn’t say anything relevant “above”. What do imagine was relevant?
And then we go back to the other John 10:34-46 qualification. Wherever used of a human being, theos is implicitly qualified in being understood as inferring a human /angelic agent of the Father. Thus there is never the slightest possibility afforded in scripture of confounding what is in heaven with what is on earth.
Your entire point was that “o theos” can’t be used of anyone other than “the Father,” and you claimed to be making a grammatical argument. The only defense you can muster is theological, not grammatical. “O theos” is used in reference to Jesus, and you don’t have a legitimate reason to exclude “qualified” phrases from consideration. You have no grammarians support for doing so.
 
I don't condemn anyone, you condemn yourself if you trust in men.

You are mistaken I did not categorize anyone. You esteem scholars above others...
Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
The fact is you do put your trust in men to translate the scriptures for you, and if you deny it you're a liar.

I never made those claims.

Saints follow Christ. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord is actually following Christ. Christian was a generic term used by the people of Antioch for everyone who said Lord, Lord. They were not aware of
John 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Jesus said he had glory with the Father before the world existed John 17:5. So why don't you credit it and all its ramiifications?

That still does not make them God. Why are you trying to make another god?
God works through agents to which he gives God-like powers. You have denigrated this idea in the past. Why?

A false God may manifest true God? What exactly are you saying?
See above.

To reign with Jesus does not make us Jesus. What are you reigning as?

No, it does not...However, you still teach two Gods ...a false defacto God and a true God.
If you can't understand the concept of delegated authority, you have a feeble mind.
 
If you are claiming that your argument is based on grammar, it does. You have consistently claimed that you were making a grammatical argument.
You have consistently imputed the argument as one of grammar. However it can be also be one of context. Context involves qualification.

You don’t have a grammatical reason for excluding “qualified” usages of “o theos”. You are refusing to address this fact.

You didn’t say anything relevant “above”. What do imagine was relevant?
Re-read my amended post.

Your entire point was that “o theos” can’t be used of anyone other than “the Father,” and you claimed to be making a grammatical argument.
No. That is contextual argument involving qualification.

The only defense you can muster is theological, not grammatical. “O theos” is used in reference to Jesus, and you don’t have a legitimate reason to exclude “qualified” phrases from consideration. You have no grammarians support for doing so.
O theos is never used of Jesus as against his Father, unless there is an express or unequivocally implied qualification (such as when applied in a qualified sense to the man, as per Thomas in Jn 20:28 and as per Heb 1 where it is translating a Hebrew invocation to a prince in God's favor as <vocative> Elohim).
 
The fact is you do put your trust in men to translate the scriptures for you, and if you deny it you're a liar.
What makes you think I put my trust in men? If I did we wouldn't be having this conversation...
Jesus said he had glory with the Father before the world existed John 17:5. So why don't you credit it and all its ramiifications?
There is no ramification that makes Jesus God.
God works through agents to which he gives God-like powers. You have denigrated this idea in the past. Why?
God-like power does not make a person God.
See above.
What you wrote above is claiming that Jesus is a false God
If you can't understand the concept of delegated authority, you have a feeble mind.
Delegated authority does not make one person into another person.
 
Delegated authority does not make one person into another person.
From the inception I have denied that Jesus is accorded the same title as the Father. That you are still persisting in your delusion that the English word for "God" with its implication of definiteness, but as predicate subject to contextual definition even in English, retains its definite sense in the anarthrous-predicate-theos context in Jn 1:1c, shows you have learned nothing. Your whole argument is based on nothing more than wanton refusal to learn what the Greek of Jn 1:1c says, and that it can be translated as "The Word was God" contextual to Jn 1:1b without any confusion of titles.

I realize that your education in linguistics is somewhat limited, and to that extent it imposes a serious handicap to your ability to grasp Jn 1:1, but you should at least acknowledge that it is the case, and not pretend to qualifications in linguistics that you do not have when you say "The Word was not God."
 
Last edited:
From the inception I have denied that Jesus is accorded the same title as the Father.
But you are saying that Jesus = The Word and the Word is God. We believe in one God. If Jesus is not that one God, what God is he?
That you are still persisting in your delusion that the English word for "God" with its implication of definiteness, but as predicate subject to contextual definition even in English, retains its definite sense in the anarthrous-predicate-theos context in Jn 1:1c, shows you have learned nothing.
You are making up stuff, as I already told you all references to understanding God must go back to the Hebrew context. The Hebrews do not have two Gods.
Your whole argument is based on nothing more than wanton refusal to learn what the Greek of Jn 1:1c says, and that it can be translated as "The Word was God" contextual to Jn 1:1b without any confusion of titles.
The Greek understanding of God differs from the Hebrew understanding of God. To the Greek, there is a God of the sea, a God of the underworld, and a God for everything imaginable...To the Hebrew....choose your translation.
I realize that your education in linguistics is somewhat limited, and to that extent it imposes a serious handicap to your ability to grasp Jn 1:1, but you should at least acknowledge that it is the case, and not pretend to qualifications in linguistics that you do not have when you say "The Word was not God."
Relying on your understanding of linguistics does not help you in this situation. You are proposing that the Word/ Jesus is or was is another God.
 
You are making up stuff, as I already told you all references to understanding God must go back to the Hebrew context. The Hebrews do not have two Gods.
You err greatly. Jesus acknowledged in John 10:34-36 that the men to whom the word of God came were accorded the title ELOHIM in the Hebrew, (anathrous predicate usage) θεοί εστέ in LXX (You are Gods).

You might as well say that Jesus was lying.

So decide for yourself: do we accept your testimony that Jn 1:1c is a lie, or Jesus testimony, that "The word of God cannot be broken."

The Greek understanding of God differs from the Hebrew understanding of God. To the Greek, there is a God of the sea, a God of the underworld, and a God for everything imaginable...To the Hebrew....choose your translation.

Relying on your understanding of linguistics does not help you in this situation. You are proposing that the Word/ Jesus is or was is another God.
This is rubbish. There is a much synonymity between Eloah/Elohim and Theos/ Theoi. In Hebrew, as in the Greek, the article is added to infer YHWH. The main distinction is in the usage of the plural Elohim in Hebrew for the singular isn't reflected in the Greek theos. Otherwise almost identical.
 
You err greatly. Jesus acknowledged in John 10:34-36 that the men to whom the word of God came were accorded the title ELOHIM in the Hebrew, (anathrous predicate usage) θεοί εστέ in LXX (You are Gods).
I am not in error. I have been trying to tell you from the get-go. Moses was called Elohim and angels are called Elohim. But to us, there is one true Elohim who is YHWH. The title Elohim is afforded to anyone in a leadership position. Hebrews understand this. Greeks understand Theos to be supernatural beings. Greeks have many Theos. Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hestia and Demeter, Hades, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, Athena, Hephaestus, Aphrodite and Ares. They all have supernatural powers. Jesus was a man with supernatural powers therefore when the Greek language presents Jesus as Theos it is as a God or demi-God.
You might as well say that Jesus was lying.
How so? Did God not make Moses an Elohim? Didn't God give Moses supernatural powers? The Hebrews never counted Moses as God did they?
So decide for yourself: do we accept your testimony that Jn 1:1c is a lie, or Jesus testimony, that "The word of God cannot be broken."
Your understanding of the passage is misleading. Jesus acknowledges the father as the only true God. So according to Jesus himself if you call him God he must be a false God. So you decide... Is Jesus a false God?
This is rubbish. There is a much synonymity between Eloah/Elohim and Theos/ Theoi.
Well, present to us the only true Theos according to Greek understanding. Did the Greek worship YHWH?
In Hebrew, as in the Greek, the article is added to infer YHWH.
There is no mention of YHWH in the Greek.
The main distinction is in the usage of the plural Elohim in Hebrew for the singular isn't reflected in the Greek theos. Otherwise almost identical.
Almost is not identical. Hebrews have one true Elohim who is YHWH...Greeks have many Elohim none is YHWH.
 
I am not in error. I have been trying to tell you from the get-go. Moses was called Elohim and angels are called Elohim. But to us, there is one true Elohim who is YHWH. The title Elohim is afforded to anyone in a leadership position. Hebrews understand this. Greeks understand Theos to be supernatural beings. Greeks have many Theos. Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hestia and Demeter, Hades, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, Athena, Hephaestus, Aphrodite and Ares. They all have supernatural powers. Jesus was a man with supernatural powers therefore when the Greek language presents Jesus as Theos it is as a God or demi-God.
We are talking specifically about the Logos in heaven being imbued with "supernatural powers" on a permanent basis. It is the bible's contention that this permits the common noun "theos" to be applied in a non-titular sense to the Logos contextual to, i.e. qualified by, Jn 1:1b.

Moreover your attempt to distinguish the Greek from Hebrew is doomed to failure, as Theoi is used by John/Jesus in John 10:34-36 as a direct substitute for Elohim.

How so? Did God not make Moses an Elohim? Didn't God give Moses supernatural powers? The Hebrews never counted Moses as God did they?
Rather, did the Father give the Logos/ascended Christ supernatural powers of an exceptional nature? Undoubtedly.

Your understanding of the passage is misleading. Jesus acknowledges the father as the only true God. So according to Jesus himself if you call him God he must be a false God. So you decide... Is Jesus a false God?
I don't call Jesus "God" is an unqualified sense. Neither does anyone else in the bible. You are clutching at straws.

Well, present to us the only true Theos according to Greek understanding. Did the Greek worship YHWH?
The only one with the unqualified title "o theos" is the Father.
There is no mention of YHWH in the Greek.
Irrelevant.
Almost is not identical. Hebrews have one true Elohim who is YHWH...Greeks have many Elohim none is YHWH.
If God calls the recipients of his delegated powers "Gods" or even "God", whether in earth or in heaven, it isn't for you to repudiate or challenge it, but to understand what it connotes.
 
We are talking specifically about the Logos in heaven being imbued with "supernatural powers" on a permanent basis.
That does not make the Logos a God of any sort. Believers are not allowed to have any Gods apart from YHWH.
It is the bible's contention that this permits the common noun "theos" to be applied in a non-titular sense to the Logos contextual to, i.e. qualified by, Jn 1:1b.
Theos refers to a God. Is it your contention that the Logos is another God apart from YHWH?
Moreover your attempt to distinguish the Greek from Hebrew is doomed to failure, as Theoi is used by John/Jesus in John 10:34-36 as a direct substitute for Elohim.
If in fact they were speaking Greek they would be speaking to Hebrews, wouldn't they? Hebrews understand Elohim to be ant powerful person.
Rather, did the Father give the Logos/ascended Christ supernatural powers of an exceptional nature? Undoubtedly.
The only true God giving another person supernatural powers does not make the person another God does it?
I don't call Jesus "God" is an unqualified sense.
So what kind of God are you calling him? A false God?
Neither does anyone else in the bible. You are clutching at straws.
Don't include anyone else ...this is your argument... please explain how Jesus is "God' in a qualified sense...
The only one with the unqualified title "o theos" is the Father.
And since believers have only one true God no one else qualifies as God to the believer.
Irrelevant.
Very relevant...How do you determine when YHWH is the one referred to
If God calls the recipients of his delegated powers "Gods" or even "God",
Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

whether in earth or in heaven, it isn't for you to repudiate or challenge it, but to understand what it connotes.
Of course, I can challenge it...
NOG
Say to him, ‘Yahweh Elohim of the Hebrews sent me to tell you, “Let my people go to worship me in the desert.” So far you have not listened.

It connotes that they are not Gods...since believers have only one true God.
 
That does not make the Logos a God of any sort. Believers are not allowed to have any Gods apart from YHWH.
What if YHWH imposes the Logos as your personal God, and you reject him? "He who rejects me rejects the one who sent me." etc,

Luke 19:14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'

This sounds like you.

Theos refers to a God. Is it your contention that the Logos is another God apart from YHWH?
Grow up. The logos implements YHWH's will as he is his appointed agent.

If in fact they were speaking Greek they would be speaking to Hebrews, wouldn't they? Hebrews understand Elohim to be ant powerful person.

The only true God giving another person supernatural powers does not make the person another God does it?
If his WORD has the de facto power of life and death, or of eternal life versus eternal death, then yes. Such are the powers claimed by Jesus, as to his WORD, which came from YHWH.

John 12:44. Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in Me does not believe in Me alone, but in the One who sent Me."

So what kind of God are you calling him? A false God?

Don't include anyone else ...this is your argument... please explain how Jesus is "God' in a qualified sense...
I have been doing so, for many weeks. You won't understand, because you don't want to. Jesus is the one through whom YHWH speaks.

If you reject the words spoken by Jesus, you're damned. So tell me, does not this make Jesus a de facto God by reason that he was given the words of eternal life, which you are bound to acccept or perish?

And since believers have only one true God no one else qualifies as God to the believer.
Reject Jesus as your ruler and you will go to hell is the message of Jesus. Seeking to alienate Jesus from "true God" is a heretical endeavor.

Very relevant...How do you determine when YHWH is the one referred to
Contextually unqualfied <article> theos (e.g. Jn 1:1b), or wherever theos is subject and contextually unqualfied (e.g. 2 Cor 5:19).

Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Jesus is God's son, not a foreign God. By quoting such passages you reject the Logos, and so you reject the Father, as "the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son"

Of course, I can challenge it...
NOG
Say to him, ‘Yahweh Elohim of the Hebrews sent me to tell you, “Let my people go to worship me in the desert.” So far you have not listened.

It connotes that they are not Gods...since believers have only one true God.
I take it you're a confirmed deist. Deists are not christians, even if they concede someone called Jesus.
 
Last edited:
What if YHWH imposes the Logos as your personal God, and you reject him? "He who rejects me rejects the one who sent me." etc,
YHWH does not send us a personal God... Again you are assuming another God. YHWH is our only true God...
Luke 19:14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'

This sounds like you.
How so? I accept Jesus as my Lord. Jesus reigns as Lord . Not as God. Believers have only one God YHWH.
Grow up. The logos implements YHWH's will as he is his appointed agent.
That does not make the Logos God, Believers have one God who is YHWH.
If his WORD has the de facto power of life and death, or of eternal life versus eternal death, then yes. Such are the powers claimed by Jesus, as to his WORD, which came from YHWH.
Starting your sentences with IF is proof that you don't know what you are saying. Your words also have the power of life and death...It does not make you God
Proverbs 18:21
Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

John 12:44. Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in Me does not believe in Me alone, but in the One who sent Me."
That does not make Jesus God.
I have been doing so, for many weeks. You won't understand, because you don't want to. Jesus is the one through whom YHWH speaks.
That does not make Jesus God
If you reject the words spoken by Jesus, you're damned. So tell me, does not this make Jesus a de facto God by reason that he was given the words of eternal life, which you are bound to acccept or perish?
No, it does not make Jesus any kind of God. According to your understanding then your bible is also your God.
Reject Jesus as your ruler and you will go to hell is the message of Jesus. Seeking to alienate Jesus from "true God" is a heretical endeavor.
Jesus was appointed ruler over us by YHWH. Jesus has a God.
Contextually unqualfied <article> theos (e.g. Jn 1:1b), or wherever theos is subject and contextually unqualfied (e.g. 2 Cor 5:19).
You are grasping at straws... Jesus is not any kind of God.
Jesus is God's son, not a foreign God.
He is not any God.
By quoting such passages you reject the Logos, and so you reject the Father, as "the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son"
How does quoting the scripture reject the Logos? The Logos is not God or any kind of God.
I take it you're a confirmed deist. Deists are not christians, even if they concede someone called Jesus.
What you take is your opinion. You are arguing many Gods. You want a True God and another God. Since there is only one true God then the other God must be a false God.
 
YHWH does not send us a personal God... Again you are assuming another God. YHWH is our only true God...

How so? I accept Jesus as my Lord. Jesus reigns as Lord . Not as God. Believers have only one God YHWH.

That does not make the Logos God, Believers have one God who is YHWH.

Starting your sentences with IF is proof that you don't know what you are saying. Your words also have the power of life and death...It does not make you God
Proverbs 18:21
Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.


That does not make Jesus God.

That does not make Jesus God

No, it does not make Jesus any kind of God. According to your understanding then your bible is also your God.
The word "God/theos" as a common noun can be applied to many things. As Paul said "there are many gods." This is why you are so incongruent, because although you acknowledge it as to false gods, you don't accept that "theos" is applied by the Father to his agents. They are not "false gods" as you like to make out. Although you assert the Father as your God, it is clear you don't agree with the way he operates.

Jesus was appointed ruler over us by YHWH. Jesus has a God.
The Logos is ruler over all creation: always was - always will be. The Logos implements the will of God. There is no access to the Father, but by the Logos. Therefore claiming the Father as God will get you nowhere unless you understand who the Logos is, and what he does.
You are grasping at straws... Jesus is not any kind of God.
So you contend with Jesus in John 10:34-36, who included himself as an anarthrous-predicate theos.

He is not any God.
He's on the throne of God.

How does quoting the scripture reject the Logos? The Logos is not God or any kind of God.
He's on the throne of God per Jn 1:1c. If you deny the Word of God exercises the power of God, you deny the Father.

What you take is your opinion. You are arguing many Gods. You want a True God and another God. Since there is only one true God then the other God must be a false God.
I'm going by what the bible says. I don't offer an opinion: I offer Jn 1:1c and Jn 10:34-36, which are key passages that repudiate your nonsense about "false gods". Those who exercise YHWH's delegated power are called GODS, or even God (common noun sense) as applied to the Logos. The reason for this is that the Father is inaccessible except through the Logos
 
The word "God/theos" as a common noun can be applied to many things. As Paul said "there are many gods."
Yes Paul says there are many called gods but you fail to continue reading where he says but to us (referring to believers) there is but one God the father...He also acknowledges that not everyone has that knowledge
read it slowly...
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
This is why you are so incongruent, because although you acknowledge it as to false gods, you don't accept that "theos" is applied by the Father to his agents.
Applied by whom? Paul says we have one God...
They are not "false gods" as you like to make out.
They must be since Jesus acknowledges the father as the only true God...
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Although you assert the Father as your God, it is clear you don't agree with the way he operates.
I do agree with how he operates...
Deuteronomy 5:7
Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Deuteronomy 6:14
Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
Deuteronomy 11:16
Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

You on the other hand are promoting other gods to serve.
The Logos is ruler over all creation: always was - always will be. The Logos implements the will of God. There is no access to the Father, but by the Logos. Therefore claiming the Father as God will get you nowhere unless you understand who the Logos is, and what he does.
That does not make the Logos God.
So you contend with Jesus in John 10:34-36, who included himself as an anarthrous-predicate theos.
John 10:34-36 would make you a god also ...Are you a god? I tried to explain to you that the Hebrew understanding differs from the Greek. The word used in the OT where Jesus quoted from says Elohim...This is how the Complete Jewish Binle puts it...
CJB
“My decree is: ‘You are elohim [gods, judges], sons of the Most High all of you.
He's on the throne of God.
And so will believers, but that does not make us Gods...
Revelation 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He's on the throne of God per Jn 1:1c. If you deny the Word of God exercises the power of God, you deny the Father.
Believers also exercise the power of God...Exercising the power of God does not make a person God.
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
I'm going by what the bible says. I don't offer an opinion: I offer Jn 1:1c and Jn 10:34-36, which are key passages that repudiate your nonsense about "false gods".
So how many Gods do you have?
Those who exercise YHWH's delegated power are called GODS, or even God (common noun sense) as applied to the Logos.
Please tell us how many Gods you have. You are clearly claiming that Jesus is a God but when I ask you if Jesus is God you say no. How many Gods do you have?
The reason for this is that the Father is inaccessible except through the Logos
What reason? Are you saying that we need a God(Jesus) to get to the true God (YHWH)?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
 
What reason? Are you saying that we need a God(Jesus) to get to the true God (YHWH)?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
You summed it up well. Your quarrel is with scripture, and with the idea of God, who as Spirit, works through others, imputing God-like attributes to them. to a lesser or greater extent. If you don't (as you appear not to) recognize the Father in Jesus, or in the Logos, you are lost. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" etc.
 
You summed it up well.
So you are saying Jesus is a lesser God that we need to go through to meet the true God?
Your quarrel is with scripture, and with the idea of God, who as Spirit, works through others, imputing God-like attributes to them. to a lesser or greater extent.
I have no quarrel with the scripture, God imputing godlike attributes into people does not make the people Gods.
If you don't (as you appear not to) recognize the Father in Jesus, or in the Logos, you are lost. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" etc.
The father in Jesus does not make Jesus God. Jesus used a figure of speech to convey the message that the father abides in him, not that he is a God or the Father. If you believe that the men who saw Jesus have actually seen God the father then Jesus is contradicting himself.
John 5:37
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
 
So you are saying Jesus is a lesser God that we need to go through to meet the true God?

I have no quarrel with the scripture, God imputing godlike attributes into people does not make the people Gods.
God as a common noun, infers God-like attributes, and especially those of the Father.

The father in Jesus does not make Jesus God. Jesus used a figure of speech to convey the message that the father abides in him, not that he is a God or the Father. If you believe that the men who saw Jesus have actually seen God the father then Jesus is contradicting himself.
John 5:37
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
They didn't see the Father's face. They saw the Father at work. But in heaven the Logos is clothed with the Father's own glory.
 
God as a common noun, infers God-like attributes, and especially those of the Father.
God as a common noun would include idols. Do idols have God-like attributes of the father?
They didn't see the Father's face.
Then you agree that Jesus was not referring to them actually seeing the father.
They saw the Father at work.
You used the passage to imply that they saw the father...
But in heaven the Logos is clothed with the Father's own glory.
Wearing your father's clothes does not make you your father. You are being wilfully ignorant. Jesus /the Logos is not any kind of God. Defacto or otherwise.
 
Back
Top