latreuō

[cjab]

You have repeatedly mislead people about your knowledge of Greek, and you still refuse to admit you don’t know it.

I have never misled anyone over my knowledge of Greek: that is a blatant lie on your part and the truth is that for much of the past year you have been saying the exact contrary about me being honest on my knowledge of Greek. In any event you always bring this up, but as I always cite Greek authorities and research them before I post, it is frankly irrelevant. I am as capable of reading the authorties as you are.

You really have this problem: truth is bendable to whatever you want it to be, and to fit your argument. It's why, sadly. I just can't credit a word you say.

Likewise, you constantly claim that I don’t know the language when I certainly do and have demonstrated so numerous times through our interactions.

Your opinions are diametrically opposed by many leading authorities. Thus you spent a large part of the last year trying to discredit my proposition that O theos refers to the person of the Father, asserting I knew no Greek, when the Cambridge Bible Commentary says exactly the same thing as me. You only demonstrate that you don't know Koine Greek (as TRJM has said many times).

This is but one of many clear examples. Since the truth so obviously stings you, you should repent.

I rest my case: the Cambridge Bible Commentary and Winer (by inference of how he interprets passages) say exactly the same thing as me about "O theos" & "theos" nearly always denoting the Father, excepting only a few notable exceptions that are contextually explainable. This position you comprehensively reject. I don't need to promote myself: I just point out that you are in disagreement with some of the best authorities out there.

You've got a serious amount of catching up if you are ever to understand the NT. And let me tell you that even many native Greek speakers never understood the NT, doubtless because the language of pagan Greek is not the language of the NT.

 

[John Milton]

I have never misled anyone over my knowledge of Greek: that is a blatant lie on your part and the truth is that for much of the past year you have been saying the exact contrary about me being honest on my knowledge of Greek.

You have repeatedly given the impression that you know Greek and have pretended as though you are in a position to answer questions about the language. I, rightly, call you out on it when I see it.

In any event you always bring this up, but as I always cite Greek authorities and research them before I post, it is frankly irrelevant.

You cherry pick your data.

I am as capable of reading the authorties as you are.

No. You are not. And it is evident when you post sources that contradict your position (or don't actually address the claim that was made as in your last effort) and you don't even realize it.

You really have this problem: truth is bendable to whatever you want it to be, and to fit your argument. It's why, sadly. I just can't credit a word you say.

That is your imagination at work.

Your opinions are diametrically opposed by many leading authorities. Thus you spent a large part of the last year trying to discredit my proposition that O theos refers to the person of the Father,

Your position as you had stated it was that "o theos" only refers to the Father. This appears to be your position even now.

asserting I knew no Greek,

You don't. And you are still implying that you do!

when the Cambridge Bible Commentary says exactly the same thing as me.

That's not the same thing as knowing Greek. And you more often than not misunderstand what the commentaries are actually saying. As in the case above where you said "in him" is not an acceptable translation. It totally is.

You only demonstrate that you don't know Koine Greek (as TRJM has said many times).

Again, you are confused. You and TRJM don't like it because I do know Greek and you don't have any way to argue with the truth of my assertions.

I rest my case: the Cambridge Bible Commentary and Winer (by inference of how he interprets passages) say exactly the same thing as me about "O theos" & "theos" nearly always denoting the Father,

"Nearly always" isn't always. Are you willing to accept those same sources when they do acknowledge that "theos" and "o theos" refer to God? I know you won't. I know you cherry pick you data.

excepting only a few notable exceptions that are contextually explainable.

You don't have an explanation for your "exceptions" that holds water. This is your problem.

This position you comprehensively reject.

No. I'm open to the possibility. You just haven't made a good case.

I don't need to promote myself: I just point out that you are in disagreement with some of the best authorities out there.

I'm the only one in agreement with the authorities. Except for the fringe that you might manage to find from time to time.

You've got a serious amount of catching up if you are ever to understand the NT.

To whom? You? TRJM? Don't make me laugh.

And let me tell you that even many native Greek speakers never understood the NT, doubtless because the language of pagan Greek is not the language of the NT.

What does this rubbish even mean?

 

[John Milton]

I have never misled anyone over my knowledge of Greek: that is a blatant lie on your part and the truth is that for much of the past year you have been saying the exact contrary about me being honest on my knowledge of Greek.

So you are saying that the posts you have made like the one below aren't purposefully misleading?

Second, Greek isn't English, and has different language rules, which have to be learned the hard way if you really want to grasp what the Greek texts are saying deeper than their English paraphrase.

And since you say Greek language rules "have to be learned the hard way if you really want to grasp what the Greek texts are saying" are you admitting that you don't know more than the English paraphrases you read?

And since you've now admitted that you don't know Greek. What was your justification for saying things like this?

I didn't make up any rule. I pointed to a comparable example in1 Cor 14:35 where the copula wasn't omitted. The rules on incomplete structure and ellipsis can be complex, but in the absence of a relevant preposition or a conjunction, and in the absence of a juxtaposition of subject and predicate, I feel the omission of a copula, which I agree is very common, just because it is a copula is stylistically poor, whether it technically allowable or not. It seems to taking a liberty that isn't always granted. Whether the sentence is understandable is a separate issue from whether it is good Greek. I take the personal view that "αἰσχρόν γε ἐκείνοις λοιδορῆσαι σε" is poor Greek because the ellipsis is gratuitous with no particular reason for it other than that the author couldn't be bothered to put the word in.

Your opinions are diametrically opposed by many leading authorities. Thus you spent a large part of the last year trying to discredit my proposition that O theos refers to the person of the Father, asserting I knew no Greek, when the Cambridge Bible Commentary says exactly the same thing as me. You only demonstrate that you don't know Koine Greek (as TRJM has said many times).

Here is an example of your earlier claims specifically:

This new mode of speech became fixed in the NT, largely as the result of the teaching of Christ himself, such that Christ is never referred to as "o theos" in the NT, which is reserved for the Father, and for the Father in Christ (having regard to John 20:28).

Emphasis added. I don't know why you act as though the assertion that I made about your claim is false.

I rest my case: the Cambridge Bible Commentary

I don't know what you were reading:

John 20 - Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary for Schools and Colleges - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

John 20, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary for Schools and Colleges, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary is filled with great exegesis and written by the best British Bible scholars of the time.

www.studylight.org

"My Lord and my God ] Most unnatural is the Unitarian view, that these words are an expression of astonishment addressed to God . Against this are (1) the plain and conclusive ‘said unto Him ;’ (2) the words ‘my Lord,’ which manifestly are addressed to Christ (comp. v . 13); (3) the fact that this confession of faith forms a climax and conclusion to the whole Gospel. The words are rightly considered as an impassioned declaration on the part of a devoted but (in the better sense of the term) sceptical Apostle of his conviction, not merely that his Risen Lord stood before him, but that this Lord was also his God. And it must be noted that Christ does not correct His Apostle for this avowal, any more than He corrected the Jews for supposing that He claimed to be ‘equal with God’ (5:18, 19); on the contrary He accepts and approves this confession of belief in His Divinity."

and Winer (by inference of how he interprets passages) say exactly the same thing as me about "O theos" & "theos"

I would agree with you that Winer would probably make the same sad argument you are making. He'd still be wrong.

nearly always denoting the Father, excepting only a few notable exceptions that are contextually explainable.

The only way to take John 20:28 is as a reference to the Jesus being called "o theos."

 

[The Real John Milton]

Revelation 22:3 teaches otherwise.

You and "John Milton" obviously do not know Biblical Koine : maybe such things are possible in 3rd and 4th century Trinitarian writings, but not in the GNT . The singular pronoun always refers to one person, not two. So too in Rev. 22:3 --

καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται, καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ,

Your idea that Jesus and the Father can be referred to with a singular form of the pronoun is discounted by the apostle himself. See Rev. 6:17 --

ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;

 

[The Real John Milton]

The only way to take John 20:28 is as a reference to the Jesus being called "o theos."

That is another untruth.

 

[John Milton]

You and "John Milton" obviously do not know Biblical Koine

I can't speak for Fred, but I don't know why you keep repeating this lie about me. I'll embarrass you with some displays of your Greek "prowess" if you keep it up.

: maybe such things are possible in 3rd and 4th century Trinitarian writings, but not in the GNT . The singular pronoun always refers to one person, not two. So too in Rev. 22:3 --
Your idea that Jesus and the Father can be referred to with a singular form of the pronoun is discounted by the apostle himself. See Rev. 6:17 --

I haven't said anything on this topic. Why do you imply that I have?

 

[The Real John Milton]

I can't speak for Fred, but I don't know why you keep repeating this lie about me. I'll embarrass you with some displays of your Greek "prowess" if you keep it up.

I haven't said anything on this topic. Why do you imply that I have?

Is λατρεύω being given to both God and the Lamb in Rev. 22:3 ? It’s a simple yes or no question.

 

[cjab]

Is λατρεύω being given to both God and the Lamb in Rev. 22:3 ? It’s a simple yes or no question.

By reference to Rev 22:4 ("They shall see his face"), "his" can only refer to God i.e. YHWH, viz, Exodus 33:20 (But [YHWH] added, “You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.").

For YHWH being the Father, viz, Matt 6:9 ("Our Father, Hallowed by Thy name") - the name of the Father is YHWH.

Also "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."

Also Rev 14:8: the lamb always reveals the Father.

Thus, in Rev 22:4, there is nothing to preclude the face of God being revealed in the persona of the lamb on the throne, who possesses the Father's glory.

The role of humans is to believe in and honor the lamb. In this, λατρεύω is given to the Father.

 

[John Milton]

Is λατρεύω being given to both God and the Lamb in Rev. 22:3 ? It’s a simple yes or no question.

You didn't address my valid concerns, so don't expect me to entertain your distractions.

 

[John Milton]

That is another untruth.

As I've said repeatedly, you two can say anything you want as many times as you want, but it won't make your false assertions true.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You didn't address my valid concerns, so don't expect me to entertain your distractions.

I rest my case.

 

[Fred]

You and "John Milton" obviously do not know Biblical Koine : maybe such things are possible in 3rd and 4th century Trinitarian writings, but not in the GNT . The singular pronoun always refers to one person, not two. So too in Rev. 22:3 --

Incorrect. See the OP and post 5.

John is not very strict with the use of the singular pronoun. He often doesn't bother to strictly differentiate between the Father and the Son. This holds true with certain titles as well.
1 John 2:3 (Him; His)
1 John 2:4 (Him; His)
1 John 2:5 (His; Him)
1 John 2:6 (Him; He)
1 John 2:8 (Him)
1 John 2:12 (His)
1 John 2:13 (Him)
1 John 2:14 (Him)
1 John 2:20 (Holy One)
1 John 2:25 (He)
1 John 2:27 (Him; His; Him)
1 John 2:28 (Him; He; Him; His)
1 John 2:29 (He; Him)
1 John 3:2 (He; Him X2; He)
1 John 3:3 (Him; He)
1 John 3:5 (He; Him)
1 John 3:6 (Him X3)
1 John 3:7 (He)
1 John 3:19 (Him)
1 John 3:23 (He)
1 John 3:24 (His; Him; He)
1 John 4:4 (He)
1 John 4:13 (Him; He X2; His)
1 John 4:17 (He)
1 John 4:19 (He)
1 John 4:21 (Him)
1 John 5:14 (Him; His; He)
1 John 5:15 (He; Him)
1 John 5:20 (Him X2; He)
3 John 1:7 (Name)
Revelation 6:10 ('holy and true')

Your idea that Jesus and the Father can be referred to with a singular form of the pronoun is discounted by the apostle himself. See Rev. 6:17 --

Thus proving Jesus is not the Father (contra Sabellianism).

Who Sits on the THRONE in Revelation Chapter 4 and 5

Scripture, Revelation 4:1 "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." Revelation 4:2 "And immediately I was in the...

forums.carm.org

Some passages prove the Lord Jesus is God while others differentiate Him from the Father. This isn't difficult to understand.

 

[cjab]

Incorrect. See the OP and post 5.

What you really mean is, "See my lexicons."

John is not very strict with the use of the singular pronoun.

Contrariwise, John is "very strict" with the use of the singular pronoun: so strict that the plural pronoun is never used of God and Christ together (except Rev. 6:17 but see below). Also contrariwise, most times, it is clear who is being alluded to. Rev 22:3 is an exception in terms of lack of clarity, but I think it may be deliberate.

Surely in Rev 22:3 the singular is used by fixed and unalterable convention to denote one God = one Throne (per Deut 6:4). In practical terms, "him" is likely to denote the lamb possessed of the Father's glory. That the Lamb is the power of God is inarguable.

Thus I cannot see how the Father could ever be "seen" without the Lamb, and likewise the Lamb will never be seen without the Father's glory: that is the message of Revelation, I conclude.

Thus proving Jesus is not the Father (contra Sabellianism).

Rev. 6:17 doesn't prove anything because there is variation in the manuscripts between singular and plural. (Textus Receptus is sing., mGNT is plural - see here).

Some passages prove the Lord Jesus is God

Since this is the Biblical language forum, your comment is inconsequential propaganda. What can be said for sure is that without the Father's glory, i.e. when he was a human being, Jesus is never deferred to as "God" in the doctrinal teaching of Jesus, Paul or John.

God, less the identifiable and biblically explained agency exceptions (cf. John 10:34-36 & angels in the OT etc), always infers the glory of God as a minimum requirement.

Jesus alluded to as, the power of God, the wisdom of God, the salvation of God, the word of God &etc, would be conceptually meaningless if he himself was "God." It is obvious that the God is the Father qua the person of God.

while others differentiate Him from the Father. This isn't difficult to understand.

True, it's not difficult to understand that the Father and the Son are distinguishable.

 

[Fred]

What you really mean is, "See my lexicons."

There were no lexicons in post 5.
And I also had a link in the OP with other evidence.

You left the above out.
Typical.

Contrariwise, John is "very strict" with the use of the singular pronoun

And yet you ignored all the passages I supplied.

No need for me to ready any further of your maniacal ramblings when the two above are such a disaster for you.

I'm not here to correct all your confusion. It is a massive mess. Here's a reminder for you from post 57:

You conveniently left this part out:
The strongest proof, perhaps, in the book of the doctrine of Christ's coequal Deity. If we read these words in the light of St John’s Gospel, or of the Nicene Creed, they suggest no difficulty, but without the doctrine there taught, they make salvation to consist in the deadly sin which the Moslems call “association”—the worshipping the creature by the side of the Creator.
Revelation 20 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

 

[John Milton]

I rest my case.

You never had one.

 

[Fred]

By reference to Rev 22:4 ("They shall see his face"), "his" can only refer to God

You enjoy leaving out Jesus to your own confusion. (1 John 3:2; Revelation 1:7)

Revelation 22:4:
his name [shall be] in their foreheads] So in Revelation 14:1, where, according to the true text, we see that "His" still means the Name of God, both the Father and the Son.
Revelation 22 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

 

[cjab]

There were no lexicons in post 5.
And I also had a link in the OP with other evidence.

You left the above out.
Typical.



And yet you ignored all the passages I supplied.

No need for me to ready any further of your maniacal ramblings when the two above are such a disaster for you.

I'm not here to correct all your confusion. It is a massive mess. Here's a reminder for you from post 57:

Just a massive inabiity to comprehend on your part, then.

You conveniently left this part out:
The strongest proof, perhaps, in the book of the doctrine of Christ's coequal Deity. If we read these words in the light of St John’s Gospel, or of the Nicene Creed, they suggest no difficulty, but without the doctrine there taught, they make salvation to consist in the deadly sin which the Moslems call “association”—the worshipping the creature by the side of the Creator.
Revelation 20 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

When Christ ascended and became possessed of the glory of God, it wasn't that he became a "co-equal deity" with the Father but that he became a single deity with the Father (as I explained above).

 

[Fred]

Just a massive inabiity to comprehend on your part, then.

I refuse to make sense out of the insanity you believe.

When Christ ascended and became possessed of the glory of God, it wasn't that he became a "co-equal deity" with the Father but that he became a single deity with the Father (as I explained above).

He is Deity - which means He is God.

Simple.

 

[cjab]

You enjoy leaving out Jesus to your own confusion. (1 John 3:2; Revelation 1:7)

Revelation 22:4:
his name [shall be] in their foreheads] So in Revelation 14:1, where, according to the true text, we see that "His" still means the Name of God, both the Father and the Son.
Revelation 22 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

I already explained that Father and Son are a single deity (you just skipped over that bit).

 

[cjab]

I refuse to make sense out of the insanity you believe.



He is Deity - which means He is God.

Simple.

Doctrinally, he becomes deity per Jn 1:1c, (in being one with the Father) but Jesus never becomes the person of God, which is your Sabellian heresy.

May be Jn 1:1c should have been translated "The word was deity".