GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”

No, cjab that is you. This has been shown more than once in this thread alone.

Your assertions, beliefs and how you reason is a disgrace.
Paul never says Jesus is YHWH. You made that up, pursuant to your satanic gnosis. You are clueless on Greek. You have no interest in Greek or in learning Greek, but only in spouting your demented satanic teaching condemned as heretical by the Roman Catholic church for over 1500 years. You are like the demon possessed servant girl constantly following Paul shouting "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation!" Except in your case, you are proclaiming yourself and your own heresy, a clueless anti-intellectual vanity project, as the way of salvation. Paul and John and Jesus clearly distinguish Christ from God in so many verses. E.g. 1 Cor 8:6, 1Co 11:3 and many others. But you sneer at the apostles and even Christ for admitting the Father as his God (John 20:17).
 
I wouldn't count him a Trinitarian. He is a Sabellian, but using Trinitarian language. Sabellians employ the same terms as Trinitarians, but they mean different things. The clincher is that for him, YHWH is Jesus, by definition. If YHWH, who is a singular person in the OT, is Jesus, then Jesus is the same person as the Father: i.e. he is a Sabellian.
Both groups believe Jesus to be God. The main difference ofcourse is that the latter teach Jesus to be (the same “person” as )
the Father.
 
Previously you haven't denied being a Catholic.
Is your logic so terrible that you believe this matters? As far as I know, you haven’t denied being a donkey. Do you think that statement has any significance?
You seem to think ὁ Θεὸς is used of Jesus,
That is because it is true. And this is probably when you expect to say that this particular phrase is never used in connection with Jesus. However, that assertion is as meaningless as the observation you made above. There is nothing special about the use or disuse of the article. The article is used with “Θεὸς” [sic btw] in John 20:28.
as presumably it is also used of the pagan gods.
The phrase is used to refer to pagan gods, but, of course, a Christian would understand the phrase to have a different significance when used in reference to Jesus. Again, your logic fails you.
This creates large difficulties in distinguishing paganism fromChristianity.
Only to people with poor reasoning ability such as you have demonstrated.
I was speaking generically of Roman Catholics.
No. You referred to me as a RC. Perhaps you misspoke, but you were clearly talking specifically about me.
If they learned Koine Greek in place of Latin, it would spiritually benefit them.
No knowledge of the original languages is needed to benefit to receive the fullest spiritual benefit from scripture. Those who make statements such as the one you made here are usually the ones pretending to know the language. It is obvious this is true in your case.
 
Last edited:
He seems to know more biblical Greek than you do. But that is just my opinion.

Stop the trolling & maybe contribute something of substance one way or other .
As I said, both of you have demonstrated no ability to read Greek. (And both of you claim otherwise.) Therefore, your ignorant observations about anyone’s ability is of no value. However, the fact that you think cjab knows more about Greek than I shows conclusively how wrong you are.
 
Is your logic so terrible that you believe this matters? As far as I know, you haven’t denied being a donkey. Do you think that statement has any significance?
Everything matters.
That is because it is true. And this is probably when you expect to say that this particular phrase is never used in connection with Jesus. However, that assertion is as meaningless as the observation you made above. There is nothing special about the use or disuse of the article. The article is used with “Θεὸς” [sic btw] in John 20:28.
First in order of significance is whether Θεὸς appears as subject or predicate in any given context. As subject, Θεὸς always denotes the Father unless the context is a false god (very rare).

Secondly, in the predicate position, it could be highly significant as to whether Θεὸς takes an article cf. Jn 1:1c. Many learned grammarians have remarked that Θεὸς cannot take an article in Jn 1:1c without radically altering the meaning. Even as subject the use of the article or not can have different connotations as to whether the person of God or the activity/character/action/purpose/nature/etc of God is being denoted.
The phrase is used to refer to pagan gods, but, of course, a Christian would understand the phrase to have a different significance when used in reference to Jesus. Again, your logic fails you.
Jesus explained the distinction between Θεὸς being applied to the Father and to men in John 10:34-36. That Θεὸς is predicate is what is important here and the lack of article helps clarify his point. The distinction comes from the Hebrew.

Only to people with poor reasoning ability such as you have demonstrated.

No. You referred to me as a RC. Perhaps you misspoke, but you were clearly talking specifically about me.
I didn't misspeak because some time ago you declined to rebut the challenge you were RC.

No knowledge of the original languages is needed to benefit to receive the fullest spiritual benefit from scripture.
I cannot even think how you can presume to utter such nonsense.

Those who make statements such as the one you made here are usually the ones pretending to know the language. It is obvious this is true in your case.
It is obvious that despite pretending to know Greek, you still haven't worked out that John 20:28 is interpretable by reference to John 10:34-36, and that Jn 1:1c is interpretable by reference to Jn1:1b, and that the absence of the article in Jn 1:1c is highly significant, as attested by many grammarians. Moreover John 10:34-36 is further relatable to Jn 1:1c but in a different jurisdiction.

So whilst you sit there spewing out insults against me, may be you should pay more attention to your own lack of biblical knowledge, which I find embarrassing for one so given to critiquing others.
 
Last edited:
Everything matters.
:oops:
First in order of significance is whether Θεὸς appears as subject or predicate in any given context. As subject, Θεὸς always denotes the Father unless the context is a false god (very rare).
Rubbish. Besides the obvious difficulty posed to your proposal by predicate nominatives, etc., there is the fact that your proposal undoes it self. Your assertion that x means y except when it doesn’t will not be convincing to any intelligent person.
Secondly, in the predicate position, it could be highly significant as to whether Θεὸς takes an article cf. Jn 1:1c.
Here, again, you contradict yourself. To say that the article can be significant implies that there are times when it is not. If you already know that your proposal isn’t true, why make it?
Many learned grammarians have remarked that Θεὸς cannot take an article in Jn 1:1c without radically altering the meaning.
Those learned grammarians usually make it clear that they are basing their judgments not on grammar but on theology. I’m not surprised this eludes you since you don’t have a good understanding of either grammar or theology.
Even as subject the use of the article or not can have different connotations as to whether the person of God or the activity/character/action/purpose/nature/etc of God is being denoted.
By all means, give a examples.
Jesus explained the distinction between Θεὸς being applied to the Father and to men in John 10:34-36.
How did you make the leap from Jesus’s theological remarks to Greek Grammar? Your error is obvious to all except you and, likely, TRJM.
That Θεὸς is predicate is what is important here and the lack of article helps clarify his point. The distinction comes from the Hebrew.
As I’ve said, there is nothing significant about whether or not theos occurs as a subject or a predicate. Even if the use of the article were significant here-and there is no grammatical reason why it must be-the significance of an article in this single instance does not support your blanket assertion about the significance of theos used as a subject or predicate. Your logic is simply failing you again. And why we’re at it, why are you making assertions about yet another language you don’t know?
I didn't misspeak because some time ago you declined to rebut the challenge you were RC
I don’t recall this. I’d like to see the proof of it. Either way, you should understand this: the fact that you didn’t deny being a donkey doesn’t make you a donkey. (At least as the literal animal.)
I cannot even think how you can presume to utter such nonsense.
This just proves my remarks about your terrible theology.
It is obvious that despite pretending to know Greek, you still haven't worked out that John 20:28 is interpretable by reference to John 10:34-36, and that Jn 1:1c is interpretable by reference to Jn1:1b, and that the absence of the article in Jn 1:1c is highly significant, as attested by many grammarians. Moreover John 10:34-36 is further relatable to Jn 1:1c but in a different jurisdiction.
I’ve explained this to you multiple times in multiple threads already in this forum. The fact that you are acting like it never happened doesn’t shield you from people finding out that what I’m saying is true. Any who want to see the truth are welcome to read the rubbish threads in this forum.
So whilst you sit there spewing out insults against me, may be you should pay more attention to your own lack of biblical knowledge, which I find embarrassing for one so given to critiquing others.
The fact that you are mistaking the truth for insults shows how silly you are.
 
“John Milton,”

Concerning John 1:1c, please show us an example of an anarthrous PN in a S-PN construction before a “to be” verb which is definite from the Gospel of John .
 
I don’t recall this. I’d like to see the proof of it. Either way, you should understand this: the fact that you didn’t deny being a donkey doesn’t make you a donkey. (At least as the literal animal.)
You seem to be likening Roman Catholics to donkeys. The analogy is perverse, even for you.
 
There is no point to this exercise. You would know this if you understood basic linguistics.

Well, there is a point to this exercise because you and your friend Gryllus insist that the anarthrous Θεὸς before the “to be” verb in John 1:1c is definite.

In any case, the correct answer to my question is that there is NO such example in the gospel of John.

be well,
 
So is Θεὸς in John 1:1c definite, indefinite or purely qualitative ?
It depends upon one’s theology. It could be any of the three.
It is true, and it proves that there is no example of a definite PN before the “to be” verb in a S-PN construction in the Gospel of John.
And that doesn’t matter. There is nothing special about the specific verb used in John 1. Any verb that can take a predicate nominative can use the same construction with the exact same grammar as you suppose or some of the others that are also possible. Your attempt to limit the examples found in John to that specific construction are, as I’ve state repeatedly, linguistically unsound, for a single usage in a limited corpus does not mean that every single use of the construction by that author must conform to a specific usage as you erroneously suppose. You don’t know Greek, and your reasoning skills are so rudimentary that you don’t even know that it isn’t your only handicap.
 
It depends upon one’s theology.
Rubbish.

It could be any of the three.
No, it is none of the three.

cf. Jn 1v1
Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS
Lund University

"From the diachronic standpoint it must be said that there is nothing
strange about the clause και θέος ήν ό λόγος. It is perfectly normal. The
author wanted to emphasize Θεός, that is why he put that word first. It is
anarthrous because it is predicate. But this for a Greek does not mean "a
God" (which would have been Θεός τις or εις Θεός), nor does it mean "the
God" (ό Θεός). It means simply "God".

"The question of definite or indefinite does not arise for a Greek in this
context, because Θεός as predicate denotes property or essence, not
an individual [AND NOT QUALITY - see below]. 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)."
 
Back
Top