GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”

For Trinitarians, the distinctions between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are economic distinctions which are temporary, and equivalent to Sabellian modes of God's existence. Such purely economic distinctions, as denoted above, are temporary.


Your confusion was already dealt with.
Meaningless twaddle. By your estimation

Which refutes your heresy.

Jesus would be the God of his own Father

Your confusion.
Jesus the man

Acts 2:22
is both YHWH and God.

Acts 2:21

,just because he receives honor (timé) from his own Father 2 Pet 1:17 as well as from men John 5:23 (timaó).
You dodged Daniel 7:14.
 
Last edited:
Your confusion was already dealt with.


Which refutes your heresy.



Your confusion.


Acts 2:22


Acts 2:21


You dodged Daniel 7:14.
Your incoherence is such that I cannot meaningfully engage you in further conversation. Dan 7:14 starts with "he was given" (Aorist/Passive). "God" is not given any of the things mentioned in Dan 7:14, as they are innate.
 
Your incoherence is such that I cannot meaningfully engage you in further conversation. Dan 7:14 starts with "he was given" (Aorist/Passive). "God" is not given any of the things mentioned in Dan 7:14, as they are innate.

God is given praise for His attributes in doxologies (Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21).
The same with Jesus (2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Rev. 1:6).

Jesus in equality with the Father (Rev. 5:13).

You are still dodging the fact that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of worship in Daniel 7:14.
You are doing this because it refutes your heresy.

Thanks for making this easy for me.
 
God is given praise for His attributes in doxologies (Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21).
The same with Jesus (2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Rev. 1:6).

Jesus in equality with the Father (Rev. 5:13).

You are still dodging the fact that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of worship in Daniel 7:14.
You are doing this because it refutes your heresy.

Thanks for making this easy for me.
Let me repeat "God" is not given any of the things mentioned in Dan 7:14, as they are innate.

Now address my point, instead of dispensing your regular dose of propaganda.
 
Let me repeat "God" is not given any of the things mentioned in Dan 7:14, as they are innate.

Now address my point, instead of dispensing your regular dose of propaganda.

And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom (Daniel 7:14)

God is given glory in doxologies (see my previous post).

Next time, try reading with your eyes open.
 
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom (Daniel 7:14)

God is given glory in doxologies (see my previous post).

Next time, try reading with your eyes open.
It seems you can't (or won't) distinguish the glorification of Jesus by the Father with himself (John 17;5) from the praise that derives from subjects of the kingdom. And given that the glory of John 17:5 is innate to God, as is dominion, as is a kingdom, then how can the one that is "given" all these things be "God"?
 
You're just a deluded propaganda merchant.
Your assertion:
Let me repeat "God" is not given any of the things mentioned in Dan 7:14

Bit the dust in post 325.

So easy for me. I can't believe you are that deluded.
 
Notice "John Milton" fled when confronted with simple questions he doesn't want to answer --

Re: So I’m curious: you say that two of the angels in Genesis 18 are called by the author “men” and also called by him “angels.” Why then is it wrong to say that you believe they are “men and angels” ? Why is it wrong to say that you believe and teach that each is an “Angel-man” ?
 
Your assertion:
Let me repeat "God" is not given any of the things mentioned in Dan 7:14

Bit the dust in post 325.
Nothing bit the dust in post 325 except you showing any intention to engage with the subject on a rational basis. Jesus receives glory from the Father, not from men in Dan 7:14, exactly as per John 17:5, which is clearly beyond your capacity to understand. Post 325 doesn't even begin to address my point that "God" does not receive dominion, glory and sovereignty from anyone at all, as all these things are innate to God.

You seem to have an issue in that you can't debate any single issue of scripture without either insulting me or proclaiming yourself "victor". My conclusion is that there is no point in me trying to debate with you. I would be grateful if you could desist from replying to ANY of my posts on any subject on a permanent basis.
 
Notice "John Milton" fled when confronted with simple questions he doesn't want to answer --

Re: So I’m curious: you say that two of the angels in Genesis 18 are called by the author “men” and also called by him “angels.” Why then is it wrong to say that you believe they are “men and angels”?
I don't disagree with the idea that some of them are described as "men and angels", because that's what the text says.
Why is it wrong to say that you believe and teach that each is an “Angel-man” ?
It is wrong to say this because the text doesn't call them angel-men.
 
(1) I don't disagree with the idea that some of them are described as "men and angels", because that's what the text says.

(2) It is wrong to say this because the text doesn't call them angel-men.
(1) Where does the text describe some of them as “men and angels.”

(2) The biblical text never calls Jesus “God-man” either, so why don’t you have a problem with that ?
 
(1) Where does the text describe some of them as “men and angels.”
Try reading the text for yourself. In some places it calls them "men" and in other places it calls them "angels". One of them is also called "God".
(2) The biblical text never calls Jesus “God-man” either, so why don’t you have a problem with that ?
I don't use this terminology. I say that Jesus is "God" and "man".
 
Try reading the text for yourself. In some places it calls them "men" and in other places it calls them "angels". One of them is also called "God".

Scripture doesn't use it as a phrase , as you do, which makes the whole difference. If in one place Jesus calls Herod a "fox," and in another Jesus calls him "a man," are you going to argue that Herod is "Fox and man?" It's an unbiblical phrase, which deceives people with a word game mashed together from sentences with different contextual frameworks, in order to make an unbiblical claim -- namely that someone has dual ontologies. It was never the intention of the writer of Genesis 18 to argue that these angels had two ontologies. You're assuming a whole lot.

I don't use this terminology. I say that Jesus is "God" and "man".

God-man and 'God and man" are seen by orthodox Trinitarians as synonyms.
 
Scripture doesn't use it as a phrase , as you do,
Ok, now I'm tired of letting you slide with your lies and loose statements. Where have I supposedly done this?
If in one place Jesus calls Herod a "fox," and in another Jesus calls him "a man," are you going to argue that Herod is "Fox and man?"
I shouldn't have to explain to you the difference in several things being mentioned in the context of the same passage and being mentioned in different places.
It's an unbiblical phrase, which deceives people with a word game mashed together from sentences with different contextual frameworks, in order to make an unbiblical claim -- namely that someone has dual ontologies. It was never the intention of the writer of Genesis 18 to argue that these angels had two ontologies. You're assuming a whole lot.
I've not assumed anything. I've noted what scripture says. I still can't help it that you disagree with scripture.
God-man and 'God and man" are seen by orthodox Trinitarians as synonyms.
I've told you repeatedly that I don't claim to be a Trinitarian. Why are you acting surprised that I don't use their terminology?
 
Ok, now I'm tired of letting you slide with your lies and loose statements. Where have I supposedly done

I shouldn't have to explain to you the difference in several things being mentioned in the context of the same passage and being mentioned in different places.

I've not assumed anything. I've noted what scripture says. I still can't help it that you disagree with scripture.

I've told you repeatedly that I don't claim to be a Trinitarian. Why are you acting surprised that I don't use their terminology?
In English the following statement “ They are angels and men” is nonsensical at best or ungrammatical at worse if “angels and men” is not a phrase. You should then say “ They are called angels and are also called men” if you do not want people to think “angels and men” is an expression.
 
In English the following statement “ They are angels and men” is nonsensical at best or ungrammatical at worse if “angels and men” is not a phrase. You should then say “ They are called angels and are also called men” if you do not want people to think “angels and men” is an expression.
Is this your way of admitting that I never said this? If so, you left out the apology.
 
Back
Top