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

Keep “waiting patiently” that this verse ( Matthew 28:19) somehow proves that Jesus is God , and that God will “sort this out” in your favour. You will indeed be without excuse on the day of judgment.
I have alluded to the anticipated fruit of his judgmentalism before, but he doesn't see he has a problem.
Because the singular is grammatically justified. Had the plural been used we would have had the following nonsense, “.. baptize them into the names of the Father, and (into the names ) of the son and (into the names ) of the Holy Spirit.” Foolish “John Milton” will “patiently wait” until the day of judgment only to “find out” that he should have listened to the Real John Milton . Here is someone on-line who is on the right track on this score:


A parallel example is found in Luke 9:26:

ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.


δόξῃ is singular because of how the biblical Greek prepositional phrase works and not because of some non-existent Trinitarian fantasy. It’s the same as if the author had written the following:

ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ) τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ) τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.
I appreciate your point, and your point is valid. Contrast the OT usage of "names" (plural) when alluding to gods, idols and baals etc. The baptismal context is that of a unified divine ministry (or economy as Tertullian put it). The use of just one "name" suffices to demonstrate this unity without any supervening Trinitarian connotation.
 
As I have said, you are antichrist.
Pointing out your mistakes is hardly "antichrist" material.
In the context of Christianity, it is.
No, cjab, it's not.
Not in the Sabellian way you conceive it.

No your point was "I also accept that he has one name.............................." See how inconsistent you are. Chop and change your position all the time, which is why nothing you say is or can be relied upon: an eternal shape shifter.
I haven't changed my position, cjab.
A good example of a malicious aspersion. All I pretend to know is what the bible says, "there is one God the Father who is above all." You however have yet to learn it.
The one thing you have correctly stated here is that you "pretend to know...what the bible [sic] says".
Jesus made the connection clear by deferring to Ps 110:1. So you are just a BS'er.
You resort to profanity because you do not have an argument.
 
Keep “waiting patiently” that this verse ( Matthew 28:19) somehow proves that Jesus is God , and that God will “sort this out” in your favour. You will indeed be without excuse on the day of judgment.
I never said that this verse "proves that Jesus is God". I never said that God would "'sort this out' in [my] favor". I said that I am more than willing to wait and see what God chooses to do when he chooses to do it. You and cjab can pretend to sit on God's judgment seat as you seem to want to do.
 
I never said that this verse "proves that Jesus is God". I never said that God would "'sort this out' in [my] favor". I said that I am more than willing to wait and see what God chooses to do when he chooses to do it. You and cjab can pretend to sit on God's judgment seat as you seem to want to do.
So which verse from the GNT proves that Jesus is God?

Your too cute by half attitude might work with the lost at Carm., but it is not going to fly before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
 
Pointing out your mistakes is hardly "antichrist" material.
Again a contradiction in terms. If as you do, you accuse someone of being a liar, you are inferring intent to promulgate untruth, not mistake. You would have known this had you read the board rules, which you seem incapable of either comprehending or obeying. Your contradictions and inabiity to prove anything shows you are unfit to judge, yet you usurp the judgement seat of Christ. What does that make you? Exactly as I have judged.

An antipope (Latin: antipapa) is a person who makes a significant and substantial attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome.

So now you can work out what "antichrist" means.

No, cjab, it's not.
As satan is the father of lies, he is also the father of heretics. You speak untruthfully and out of ignorance.

I haven't changed my position, cjab.
You changed your point because you recognized your first point was misspoken. Misspeaking is very frequent with you.

The one thing you have correctly stated here is that you "pretend to know...what the bible [sic] says".
I used the word "pretend" (which has more than one meaning, including "lay claim to") out of respect for the apostle's teaching "The one who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know." 1 Cor 8:3, and which could have been translated "The one who pretends to know something does not yet know as he ought to know."

This teaching you yourself reject, for you pretend to know many things of which you are completely clueless, and without having the humility to admit you are uncertain of anything. Indeed your insufferable arrogance is disclosed by your claim to theological supremacy, as well as supremacy in Greek, although I have yet to see evidence of either.

Your critique demonstrates your inadequate command of the English language, as you are trying to tie me down to an alterative meaning of "pretend" which is obviously non-contextual.


You resort to profanity because you do not have an argument.
You are unable to rebut what I say without malicious accusation because you are theologically illiterate.
 
Last edited:
Again a contradiction in terms. If as you do, you accuse someone of being a liar, you are inferring intent to promulgate untruth, not mistake. You would have known this had you read the board rules, which you seem incapable of either comprehending or obeying. Your contradictions and inabiity to prove anything shows you are unfit to judge, yet you usurp the judgement seat of Christ. What does that make you? Exactly as I have judged.
The board gives its interpretation of what constitutes a "lie" and this, likely, because the moderators don't wish to police the many willfully false statements that are made. I do not have to accept this definition. I have told you that my knowledge of your motive is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not a statement you have made is a lie. It is enough for me to know with certainty that you are making statements that you know to be untrue. This you have done on many occasions without doubt.
An antipope (Latin: antipapa) is a person who makes a significant and substantial attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome.

So now you can work out what "antichrist" means.
None of this is relevant.
As satan is the father of lies, he is also the father of heretics. You speak untruthfully and out of ignorance.
Not relevant.
You changed your point because you recognized your first point was misspoken. Misspeaking is very frequent with you.
I gave you my interpretation of that passage. I haven't changed my point about it, and I haven't misspoken. I never deny other interpretations when they are possible. I only deny the validity of interpretations that aren't possible.
I used the word "pretend" (which has more than one meaning, including "lay claim to") out of respect for the apostle's teaching "The one who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know." 1 Cor 8:3, and which could have been translated "The one who pretends to know something does not yet know as he ought to know."
However you meant it, it was a good description of you.
This teaching you yourself reject, for you pretend to know many things of which you are completely clueless, and without having the humility to admit you are uncertain of anything. Indeed your insufferable arrogance is disclosed by your claim to theological supremacy, as well as supremacy in Greek, although I have yet to see evidence of either.
You don't see it because you don't know anything about either subject.
Your critique demonstrates your inadequate command of the English language, as you are trying to tie me down to an alterative meaning of "pretend" which is obviously non-contextual.
The ability to joke in a language actually demonstrates a high degree of competence in the language, but you don't know this because you don't know much about language or language acquisition.
You are unable to rebut what I say without malicious accusation because you are theologically illiterate.
Assertions without evidence don't need to be countered. Every claim that you have made that I disagree with I have explained why you are wrong and have given you evidence that supports that conclusion. All you have done here is falsely accuse me of various things which you are wrong about and for which you have no evidence to support. You are whining; that's all.
 
The board gives its interpretation of what constitutes a "lie" and this, likely, because the moderators don't wish to police the many willfully false statements that are made. I do not have to accept this definition. I have told you that my knowledge of your motive is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not a statement you have made is a lie.
How convenient that you arrogate yourself a right to use the word "lie" in a context where the dictionary definition is not satisfied.

A lie(2): an intentionally false statement.

To say or write something that is know is not true. (OED).

There is no other meaning, definition or sense of "lie." There you are using the word lie contrary to the dictionary definition. That constitutes slander, by definition, because you make an intentionally false statement. You have no right to make intentionally false statements, which are themselves real lies.

This is a really serious issue. It's no different from calling someone an "adulterer" when you know the requirements of "adultery" are not satisfied.

I conclude you are an inveterate slanderer and habitual maligner. On the basis of your admission of culpability for slander above, I would have no hestitation in permanently banning you from this board.
 
Last edited:
How convenient that you arrogate yourself a right to use the word "lie" in a context where the dictionary definition is not satisfied.

A lie(2): an intentionally false statement.

To say or write something that is know is not true. (OED).

There is no other meaning, definition or sense of "lie."
There you are using the word lie contrary to the dictionary definition. That constitutes slander, by definition, because you make an intentionally false statement. You have no right to make intentionally false statements, which are themselves real lies.
I don't know what you are talking about here, cjab. I defined a lie earlier as an intentionally dishonest statement, and I said that my definition does not match the artificial definition you cited from the forum rules (which qualifies as another definition which falsifies your statement about there being no other definitions). You continue to make brazenly false statements. Here is the proof:
That is their definition of lying, and I, and most people, don't hold to it. If you know something is a lie and say it anyway, you are lying. I don't have to know your motives or even that you are doing it for it to be a lie. In your case your most frequent deceptions involve accusing people of saying things they have never said even after you have been corrected, misquoting both other posters and the sources you cite, and pretending that you know something about Greek. You've done most all of these in this very thread.

I don't have to accept the forum's definition of "lie". That is my prerogative. I have defined what I meant when I said it, and what I've said about you is all true.
This is a really serious issue. It's no different from calling someone an "adulterer" when you know the requirements of "adultery" are not satisfied.
The serious issue at hand is the fact that you keep making false statements.
I conclude you are an inveterate slanderer and habitual maligner. On the basis of your statement above I would have no hestitation in permanently banning you from this board.
I just proved who is making false statements, cjab. It's you.
 
I don't know what you are talking about here, cjab. I defined a lie earlier as an intentionally dishonest statement, and I said that my definition does not match the artificial definition you cited from the forum rules (which qualifies as another definition which falsifies your statement about there being no other definitions). You continue to make brazenly false statements. Here is the proof:
Your definition of lie is that of antichrist: it uses the word "dishonesty" in an entirely subjectivist and non-meritorious view of the one hearing the (alleged) falsehood, that is you, whereas the dictionary definition involves no a priori use of the word dishonesty (which therefore can only be a conclusion from someone knowingly making a false statement).

So your usage of the word lie, by your own confession, involves your right to cast a priori aspersions of dishonesty.

The idea that you can even "prove" a theological falsehood is an equally idle notion in part due to your constant displays of theological prevarication. Even the name of God is uncertain with you.

Truth is not relative. Subjectivist notions of lying create imaginary licences to slander others.

I "cited" no definition of "lie" from the forum rules but only from the dictionaries. I cited the forum rules as you are clearly intent on disobeying them. The fact that you imagine that the forum rules "define the word lie" is an indication that you haven't read them.

You have shown yourself to be an inveterate slanderer, a twister of truth, and one willing to usurp the judgement seat of Christ.

The serious issue at hand is the fact that you keep making false statements.
You are addicted to slander as a drunkard is addicted to alcohol.
I just proved who is making false statements, cjab. It's you.
Again you "proved" nothing, but satiated your vanity.


Cjab, a word of advice -- don't get into the mud with a pig, a rabid one at that ; unclean creatures enjoy this type of a setting, and thrive in it.
Good advice.
 
Last edited:
Your definition of lie is that of antichrist: it uses the word "dishonesty" in an entirely subjectivist and non-meritorious view of the one hearing the (alleged) falsehood, that is you, whereas the dictionary definition involves no a priori use of the word dishonesty (which therefore can only be a conclusion from someone knowingly making a false statement).

So your usage of the word lie, by your own confession, involves your right to cast a priori aspersions of dishonesty.

The idea that you can even "prove" a theological falsehood is an equally idle notion in part due to your constant displays of theological prevarication. Even the name of God is uncertain with you.
If someone continually makes claims that they know or should know to be untrue, they are a liar. The things that I am talking about aren't differences of opinion, but cold hard facts that cannot change. In your specific case these include things like you saying that "o theos" only refers to "the Father". This is an example of a false statement. You have been shown passages using "o theos" that do not refer to "the Father", yet you use the term and make claims about the term as though it is an absolute reference to "the Father". When you do this, that is a lie. I'm talking about things like that.

Another example would be the statements that you have made throughout the forum that imply that you know Greek (or that I don't know Greek, for that matter). These are also lies. I don't have to know what you motive is in order to know that you are actively deceiving others.
Truth is not relative. Subjectivist notions of lying create imaginary licences to slander others.
I haven't made subjective claims. I have claimed that when I have singled you out for falsehoods you have, in fact, made them. I have proven this on every count made.
I "cited" no definition of "lie" from the forum rules but only from the dictionaries. I cited the forum rules as you are clearly intent on disobeying them. The fact that you imagine that the forum rules "define the word lie" is an indication that you haven't read them.
Here's what you said:
As the rule I mentioned dislosed (which you clearly haven't read) it is dishonest to label people liars unless you can see into their hearts and understand their motives, which you (equally clearly) have no ability to do, as much of the time you have trouble understanding what others are saying (even in English).
That more than justifies my claim that you have cited the forum rules. It is also another example of you making a willfully false statement (lying). I don't have any trouble understanding what others are saying.
You have shown yourself to be an inveterate slanderer, a twister of truth, and one willing to usurp the judgement seat of Christ.
None of this is true. As I have pointed out above, it is you and TRJM who constantly put yourselves in place of judgment, not me. I have pointed out the fact that you are making false statements; I'm not passing judgment on you for having done so.
You are addicted to slander as a drunkard is addicted to alcohol.
Your name calling and whining won't change the fact that what I've said is accurate.
Again you "proved" nothing, but satiated your vanity.
If you say so.
 
Those words (bold above) most likely belong to the Father, and not to Jesus nor to the Angel, nor to apostle John. The Angel is most likely quoting the Father in Rev. 22: 13. Remember, there are multiple speakers changing hands in quick succession in Rev. 22. Read starting from verse 1.

More proof that you do not know JESUS.
 
More proof that you do not know JESUS.
I disagree that you have a right to say this as the OP also has a valid point in distinguishing the words of Jesus spoken in a personal capacity, and the words of Jesus spoken out of his unity with the Father, where it appears as if the Father himself is speaking.

For Jesus said in John 14:10 "The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." The Jesus on earth mainly spoke as humanly as a human being, but still spoke the Father's words. So when he forgave people their sins, he was speaking the Father's own words in an agency capacity, as if he was the Father himself.

In heaven Jesus and the Father are unified on the throne, such that Jesus speaks and act as "God" because he is indistinguishable from God in respect of his sovereignty and form (cf. Jn 1:1c).

Thus Revelation presents similar problems of decipherment as the Old Testament, when trying to work out who is being denoted (i.e. YHWH or his angel versus Jesus or his Father).

Verses like Rev 22:13 are true both of the Father and the Son, and denote their essential unity, and the authority of the Son to speak the Father's own words.
OTOH, the Jesus in heaven can still speak for himself in a personal capacity, as in Rev 22:16 (similarly to how he spoke on earth).
 
Back
Top