The Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty (Revelation 22:13)

[cjab]

"Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός" and "Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" are equivalent constructions apart from the fact that the tense of the second verb is different from the tense implied in the first. What can be said about one construction could be said about the other. If you assert that the former means "God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence" then you should recognize "The Word was God, as a matter of constitution or essence" as a valid translational option.

You have already admitted that you don't know Greek. You are foolish for commenting on it. Here Wallace confirms what I just said: the translational possibilities are the same for both constructions.

Wallace is repudiated by Caragounis as to qualitative.

We've been over this before. Your memory and your logic are failing you.

You shouldn't when interpreting the New Testament because "God" is not used exclusively for "the Father". I don't feel like this should be a difficult thing for you to understand.

Tedious and untrue, where the context is "true God" John 17:3.

My Greek and theology are just fine. I'd suggest you learn the language and stop making false statements.

As TRJM said (following John), anyone who says that "Jesus the man is God" is an antichrist, because being God precludes being a man (God is Spirit - you might recall from above).

Thomas called Jesus "God". The genitive phrase has no impact on this fact. All you done here is demonstrated the lengths you will go to in order to deny what the text plainly says.

Deny what the text plainly says is what you have just done, by saying the gentive phrase is immaterial. It is of course vital to the whole sense of what Thomas says: an expression of faith in Christ as the Son of God, and affirmation of his equality with God deriving from Thomas's own perception of who Jesus is. It is an affirmation of faith, and Jesus understood it so.

Another error on your part.

This is true. But what you get wrong, as I've repeatedly said, is that you default position is "God" = "the Father" and this gets you into trouble when "God" does not refer to "the Father" in passages like John 1:1 and John 20:28.

According to your logic on John 20:28, wouldn't the descriptive phrase attached "God" here indicate that he is specifying the God "who is over all and through all and in all here"? (Note: I don't actually believe this, but it is the place where your previous assertion should lead you if you were actually trying to be consistent.)

Just as Jesus can be called "God" in distinction to "the Father", so can "the Father" be called "God" in distinction to the Son. The unity of the Father and Son is still an established fact.

You've raised it, but it is just as silly now as it was then. Besides, I've never claimed that "Jesus [the man] is God." I've pointed this out to you repeatedly, and yet you continue to make the false claim.

John 1:1 has nothing at all to do with agency.

You say that Jesus is man and God which is semantically identical to "Jesus the man is God."
Unity between Jesus and his Father did not extend to the use of the masculine in "I and the Father are one (neuter)" in John 10:30, which would have been required per Deut 6:4 where the masculine is used (had Jesus really been possessed of all the properties of God).
John 20:28 says "Lord and God" which isn't the same as "Lord God."

You are the one on record making false statements, not me.

No you are the one making false statements as you said "The word was called "God" in Jn 1:1" (see post 30), but God is not an appellative.

Also see above statement as to the refutation of Wallace by Caragounis (which we have been through before) - you seem to be changing your mind here also.

I've always wondered what goes through your mind as you read commentary after commentary on John 1 and John 20:28 and find none of them make the wackadoodle claims that you do. I really don't know what "superior" you are referring to, since your claims seem to be entirely your own. This is an especially important question since you've admitted you don't know Greek. Since no one else is making the claims you make and you

Obviously I know more Greek that I admit to knowing. As for me disagreeing with the commentaries: that is mere fancy on your part. You do engage in an awful lot of conjecture, it seems.

You're vision isn't very good. You still haven't removed that log.

Anyone who says "Jesus is man and God" when "God is Spirit" and the requirement is to believe that Jesus came in the flesh, has a bigger log that me. As I said to Fred, if that is what you believe, then you're an Appollinarian.

 

[John Milton]

The problem is not with any particular "contradiction" per se but in the first instance with your biblical eisegesis . To be "a man" is not the same thing as to be in the "form of" one ; the latter designation would be appropriate for an already existing being (like an angel) who assumes the guise or shape of a man, as in Genesis 18. But scripture quite clearly and irrefutably says that Jesus was really a human being, someone with human DNA (σπέρμα of Abraham ) : τούτου ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ἤγαγεν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ Σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν,

He just didn't look like a man / have the form of a man , he actually was one. Show us where scripture says Jesus was "in the form" of a man ?

Philippians 2:5-6
5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
This scripture should do the trick.

 

[John Milton]

It means "God is a Spirit." Don't see how that helps you.

That's funny. It doesn't help me or hurt me, but I'm not the one who brought it up...

 

[John Milton]

Wallace is repudiated by Caragounis as to qualitative.

I was discussing the grammar. The point was that whatever holds true for one construction holds true for the other and that your assessment of those passages is wrong. You really whiffed on that one!

Tedious and untrue, where the context is "true God" John 17:3.

And again, I will point out that you are interpreting the entire book of John by the middle of it. "John" called Jesus "God" before his incarnation, and he recorded Thomas having done so after his death. Human Jesus should refer to God as "true God" while he was a man; that doesn't mean that holds true now. As I have repeatedly said: YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED!

As TRJM said (following John), anyone who says that "Jesus the man is God" is an antichrist, because being God precludes being a man (God is Spirit - you might recall from above).

Read Philippians 2 that I quoted above. It summarizes what I just said.

Deny what the text plainly says is what you have just done, by saying the gentive phrase is immaterial. It is of course vital to the whole sense of what Thomas says: an expression of faith in Christ as the Son of God, and affirmation of his equality with God deriving from Thomas's own perception of who Jesus is. It is an affirmation of faith, and Jesus understood it so.

Well, if you think the genitive phrase changes the meaning so that it doesn't refer to Jesus as God in John 20:28, why don't you think the same can't hold true for the descriptors of God in Ephesians? You are not consistent.

You say that Jesus is man and God which is semantically identical to "Jesus the man is God."

No. I say that Jesus is referred to as "God" and "man". I believe that Jesus is once again as he was in John 1.

Unity between Jesus and his Father did not extend to the use of the masculine in "I and the Father are one (neuter)" in John 10:30, which would have been required per Deut 6:4 where the masculine is used (had Jesus really been possessed of all the properties of God).

Again, you are interpreting Jesus remarks as though he wasn't in a different situation than he was before and after his incarnation.

John 20:28 says "Lord and God" which isn't the same as "Lord God."

So?

No you are the one making false statements as you said "The word was called "God" in Jn 1:1" (see post 30), but God is not an appellative.

You are doing a very poor job of trying to twist my words. The word is called "God" in John 1:1. There is no disputing that, even if you try to get cutesy and redefine terms.

Also see above statement as to the refutation of Wallace by Caragounis (which we have been through before) - you seem to be changing your mind here also.

My mind hasn't changed at all, nor has my position shifted at all.

Obviously I know more Greek that I admit to knowing.

What you think you know, what you have demonstrated here is wrong. You know nothing.

As for me disagreeing with the commentaries: that is mere fancy on your part. You do engage in an awful lot of conjecture, it seems.

I've read the commentaries. I know no one agrees with you.

Anyone who says "Jesus is man and God" when "God is Spirit" and the requirement is to believe that Jesus came in the flesh, has a bigger log that me. As I said to Fred, if that is what you believe, then you're an Appollinarian.

You sure are fond of misapplying labels and making false statements.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Philippians 2:5-6
5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
This scripture should do the trick.

Once again proving that your Biblical Koine is weak. The text doesn’t say “form of a man” but “form of a servant.”

 

[John Milton]

Once again proving that your Biblical Koine is weak. The text doesn’t say “form of a man” but “form of a servant.”

If you were able read to read what I quoted, you would've seen that the very next phrase tells you what that part means.

 

[The Real John Milton]

If you were able read to read what I quoted, you would've seen that the very next phrase tells you what that part means.

I’m asking you to show us where scripture uses the expression “form of a man.”

 

[cjab]

I've read the commentaries. I know no one agrees with you.

That much at least is a lie, as you appeared to be unfamiliar with just about everything the commentaries say on Col 1:16. And the commentaries (at least the ones I read) on Col 1:16 agree with me that the world was created in Christ, and not you who suggested that the rendition should be that the world was created by Christ.

And in the light of such brazen dissimulation on your part, I can't see there is much point in continuing our discussion, except to point out your constant shape shifting on how Jesus came to be both God and Man simultaneously, which you have affirmed, and now say derives from your observation that "Jesus is referred to as "God" and "man"".

But as I have pointed out, the jurisdictions of heaven and earth are completely separate and different, which you prefer to ignore, which may account for the fallacies over roles and titles and forms and facts in your simplistic observations as to Jesus. How people are referred to doesn't always denote what they intrinsically are: Jesus is not really a lamb (but played the role of a lamb), nor does he bear the title of Theos, but that of the Logos, the Word of God (Rev 19:3), even if he has the role and form of God on the authority of the Father. Yet on earth he definitely was man, per his testimony and that of the apostles. And if you do anything to undermine this truth, which you do constantly by asserting he (the man) was yet God, which implies the plenary form of God, you are promoting heresy.

 

[John Milton]

I’m asking you to show us where scripture uses the expression “form of a man.”

I just showed you that "form of" is used to refer to a human being.

 

[John Milton]

That much at least is a lie, as you appeared to be unfamiliar with just about everything the commentaries say on Col 1:16. And the commentaries (at least the ones I read) on Col 1:16 agree with me that the world was created in Christ, and not you who suggested that the rendition should be that the world was created by Christ.

I was speaking of your position about Jesus in general and the claims that you had most recently made (I specifically referenced John 1:1 and John 20:28). That should've been clear to you, so I guess I should call you a liar for willfully distorting my remarks once more. But even on this particular matter you seem to omit the fact that the verse speaks of Jesus's personal involvement in creation and that this was what you took issue with in the first place.

And in the light of such brazen dissimulation on your part, I can't see there is much point in continuing our discussion,

There's never been any point in my being in this discussion; you never add anything to the "discussion". You simply make whatever assertion suits your fancy and twist my words at your whim.

except to point out your constant shape shifting on how Jesus came to be both God and Man simultaneously,

I've been entirely consistent on this point any "shape shifting" you perceive is due to your personal limitations.

which you have affirmed,

I've affirmed no change of position, because I haven't made one. This accusation is false.

and now say derives from your observation that "Jesus is referred to as "God" and "man"".

Jesus is referred to as "God" and "man". This is a fact.

But as I have pointed out, the jurisdictions of heaven and earth are completely separate and different, which you prefer to ignore, which may account for the fallacies over roles and titles and forms and facts in your simplistic observations as to Jesus.

You still treat Jesus as though he has not received the glory that he asked for in John 17:5, the glory that he had in John 1. Therefore, you imagine him currently to be a man. As I've put it elsewhere, you interpret Jesus by the middle of John's gospel.

How people are referred to doesn't always denote what they intrinsically are: Jesus is not really a lamb (but played the role of a lamb), nor does he bear the title of Theos, but that of the Logos, the Word of God (Rev 19:3), even if he has the role and form of God on the authority of the Father. Yet on earth he definitely was man, per his testimony and that of the apostles. And if you do anything to undermine this truth, which you do constantly by asserting he (the man) was yet God, which implies the plenary form of God, you are promoting heresy.

I've told you many times very clearly that I have no problem with the fact Jesus was definitely a man on earth. Why do you keep lying and saying that I deny it?

 

[cjab]

I was discussing the grammar.

What do you suppose I was discussing?

The point was that whatever holds true for one construction holds true for the other

That the construction does obviously hold true for both passages was the very reason I cited the one passage along side the other.

and that your assessment of those passages is wrong. You really whiffed on that one!

My assessment of those passages was not wrong but entirely correct. You certainly have a habit of twisting many things around 180degrees to make black white, and white black. Such was the artifice and strategy of the pharisees, and the unbelieving Jews.

My point was that we don't go around saying "Spirit the God" from Jn 4:24, like so many say "God the Son" from Jn 1:1c. We don't interpret "Spirit" as meaning more that "the properties of Spirit" located in the jurisdiction in which "The God" resides (i.e. heaven).

But you insist on importing the properties of God into the jurisdiction of the world, as if the properties of God were someone inalienable, even intrinsic to the Word. You even said "the Word is called God", as if God is the very title of the Word. Such is clearly not derivable from Jn 1:1c.

The incontrovertible fact is you are wrong in grammar by thinking you can import the predicate "anarthrous God" in Jn 1:1c as a title for Jesus into the jurisdiction of earth, so as to call Jesus "God and man." The properties of God can be divested, and were per John 1:14, 1 John 4:2 and Phil 2:6.7. So again, your theology is unsustainable from grammar.

 

[John Milton]

What do you suppose I was discussing?

I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you with is that Wallace, Caragounis, and I all disagree with your statement that there is a notable difference between PNs with or without the a verb.

That the construction does obviously hold true for both passages was the very reason I cited the one passage along side the other.

You were clearly making a distinction about the meaning of one versus the other.

Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός (Jn 4:24) doesn't mean we can call God "Spirit". It means God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence. We can defer to the Word of God as the Logos, as scripturally authenticated, by the use of the article "ὁ Λόγος" but we cannot call the logos "God" just because of Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1c.

This goes back to my earlier observation that you cannot engage properly with subject and predicate and words with the article, and words without the article. They all have different connotations, which you emasculate by using "God" as an appellative for the Word/Jesus, which Greek grammar clearly repudiates.

My assessment of those passages was not wrong but entirely correct.

The word for that is "wrong". You said that the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing. That is entirely, as in 100%, incorrect.

You certainly have a habit of twisting many things around 180degrees to make black white, and white black. Such was the artifice and strategy of the pharisees, and the unbelieving Jews.

I don't intentionally twist your words.

My point was that we don't go around saying "Spirit the God" from Jn 4:24, like so many say "God the Son" from Jn 1:1c. We don't interpret "Spirit" as meaning more that "the properties of Spirit" located in the jurisdiction in which "The God" resides (i.e. heaven).

I don't go around saying "God the Son" so I don't see how any of this is relevant (though to be clear there is nothing wrong with it). We do, however, say "God is spirit," and we can say "Jesus is God". Both are entirely in line with scripture.

But you insist on importing the properties of God into the jurisdiction of the world, as if the properties of God were someone inalienable, even intrinsic to the Word. You even said "the Word is called God", as if God is the very title of the Word. Such is clearly not derivable from Jn 1:1c

"God" refers to the essence of the word.

The fact is you are wrong in grammar by thinking you can import "anarthrous God" as a title for Jesus into the jurisdiction of earth, so as to call Jesus "God and man."

I have not claimed that Jesus is "God and man". And Jesus was called "God" while on earth so your fabricated distinctions of earth and heaven are bogus.

The properties of God can be divested, and were per Phil 2:6.7. So again, your theology is unsustainable from grammar.

I have never denied this. I have repeatedly affirmed it. Why do you keep lying?

 

[The Real John Milton]

I just showed you that "form of" is used to refer to a human being.

Nice attempt at trickery "John Milton." "Form of" is used to describe a human being in Scripture, such as his outer appearance, his vocation, etc. So Scripture says "Jesus was in the form of a servant. " But Scripture never says of Jesus that "he was in the form of a man." This statement implies that he was not actually a real man, but that he just looked and behaved etc. like one. When speaking of Jesus, scripture never modifies "form of" with "man."

 

[John Milton]

Nice attempt at trickery "John Milton." "Form of" is used to describe a human being, for instance his outer appearance, his vocation, etc.

That's not what Php. 2:5-7 says.

Thus Scripture can can that "X was in the form of a servant. " But Scripture never says of Jesus that "he was in the form of a man." This statement implies that he was not actually a man, but that he just looked and behaved etc. like one.

So, for the record, do you believe that this scripture teaches that Jesus wasn't a man?

 

[The Real John Milton]

I have not claimed that Jesus is "God and man". And Jesus was called "God" while on earth so your fabricated distinctions of earth and heaven are bogus.

I have never denied this. I have repeatedly affirmed it. Why do you keep lying?

Instead of accusing us of "fabrication," or "misrepresentation" or demanding "apologies" why don't you just clearly and honestly explain who you think Jesus was.

You now deny saying that he is "God and man." Are you saying that Jesus was God and not a man, then ?

You are not being very reasonable.

 

[The Real John Milton]

That's not what Php. 2:5-7 says.

It certainly does say that Jesus was in the form of a servant, and not that Jesus was "in the form of a man."

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

----

So, for the record, do you believe that this scripture teaches that Jesus wasn't a man?

No, seems like you are projecting yet again. I'm not the one falsely declaring that Phil. 2:5-7 says Jesus was "in the form of a man."

 

[John Milton]

You are not being very reasonable.

You made a false statement about me. I am not being unreasonable in demanding that you apologize or verify your accusation.

 

[John Milton]

It certainly does say that Jesus was in the form of a servant, and not that Jesus was "in the form of a man."
No, seems like you are projecting yet again. I'm not the one falsely declaring that Phil. 2:5-7 says Jesus was "in the form of a man."

Since you believe that this passage is saying that Jesus was a man, then the phrase "form of a servant" is the equivalent to a man, and it supports my earlier claim. This should've been clear to you before when I pointed out that the very next phrase made clear what was meant.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Since you believe that this passage is saying that Jesus was a man, then the phrase "form of a servant" is the equivalent to a man, and it supports my earlier claim. This should've been clear to you before when I pointed out that the very next phrase made clear what was meant.

"Form of a servant" = "a man" ? I think you're trying to say that "form of a servant" = "form of a man." But that's eisegesis and wholesale speculation. Fact is, scripture no where says Jesus was in the form of a man.

 

[John Milton]

"Form of a servant" = "a man" ? I think you're trying to say that "form of a servant" = "form of a man." But that's eisegesis and wholesale speculation. Fact is, scripture no where says Jesus was in the form of a man.

You just said the passage was talking about a man. Did you forget?