You're not qualifying this statement, "anarthrous θεός," with anything meaningful. In an equative construction, the article is placed before the subject. The Word is Christ, it is one of his names (Revelation 19:13), and in John 1:1 he is called "God."
No, "God" isn't his "name". His name is "the Logos" or "the Logos of God" ....
"..... because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence (or authority etc), not an individual. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute. From the theological point, too, we see
that John's use of Θεός (instead of ό Θεός) was not only grammatically
correct, but also reflected his theological conception. At the beginning,
when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the
Two. The Logos was God and yet he was not
the God (which he reserves
for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the
Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements
that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I". The
third clause shows a beautiful balance between the two and is the result
of mature reflection on the problem of Godhead." per Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS (Jn 1:1).
Again, the Word is Christ.
As a matter of identity, yes. As a matter of jurisdiction, no.
The Word became Christ (i.e. flesh). This denotes Christ being "sent" by his Father. (You seem to be ignoring the jurisdictional translation.)
John 1:1 does just that. It's not my fault you are not familiar with a basic equative construction involving a predicate nominative.
See Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS - he's a Greek scholar (he's also Grecian). Whatever he says, I tend to believe. Take the issue up with him.
You've lost the point. It's time to move on.
Why don't you let Hippolytus speak for himself? Nowhere does Hippolytus ever contend that Jesus is a generated God. You seem to be missing the point of what he is saying--completely (cf. Against Noetus, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, etc.!). In other words, did you even bother to know Hippolytus' position before lazily misrepresenting it?
He is surprisingly sophisticated. It took me a while to figure out what he was saying.
And he does in the end disappoint, there's no doubt about that.
In similar fashion, you previously misidentified the beliefs of Noetus as those of Hyppolytus. You should be more careful:
Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name. (Against Noetus, 17
πιστεύσωμεν οὖν, μακάριοι ἀδελφοί, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων ὅτι Θεὸς Λόγος ἀπ' οὐρανῶν κατῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον Μαρίαν, ἵνα σαρκωθεὶς ἐξ αὐτῆς, λαβὼν δὲ καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν, λογικὴν δὲ λέγω, γεγονὼς πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς ἁμαρτίας, σώσῃ τὸν πεπτωκότα Ἀδὰμ καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ἀνθρώποις παράσχῃ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
Yes, this part of Hippolytus is totally unacceptable. Θεὸς Λόγος = not found in the bible, τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον Μαρίαν = not found in the bible.
καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν = assuming a human?????????? (don't see it)
)
The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself . . . For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature. This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just restored to Him. For as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God, ‘emptied Himself,’ according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the ‘form of a servant,’ and ‘became obedient’ to God the Father, ‘even unto death,’ so hereafter He is said to be ‘highly exalted’; and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He receives the ‘name which is above every name,’ according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a giving, as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and a restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of humanity, He said, ‘Father, glorify me with the glory which I had,’ etc.
You can't restore something to someone if that thing is inherently
essential and inseparable.
"God of God" = not in the bible.
"begotten Word of God" = not in the bible.
For He was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead. (Commentary Fragment)
I accept this much.
You seem to like to assert a lot, but you certainly are not careful in how you approach these things.
I accept that I find Hippolytus taxing, somewhat garrulous and imprecise himself. The more I read of him, the more suspicious I am of him. It doesn't surprise me that I don't find myself agreeing with him on Rom 9:5.