You are twisting the words of the bible when you say "God became flesh." The whole point of Jn 1:1-14 is to say that "God did not become flesh;" and indeed as Jesus said "God is Spirit" (i.e. not flesh).
Exactly.
I think it's time that English translations began to reflect the Greek grammar of Jn 1:1c, i.e. the use of the anarthrous predicate. There are so many who assume Jn 1:1c is teaching sabellianism, which is then masqueraded as high trinitarianism for the sake of canonical orthodoxy. In a way the NET bible describing Jesus as "fully God" had the right idea but offered the wrong execution of it as "God" is not an adjective in Greek. I would suggest "The Word was unified with God and acted as God." But then this would also require a change to the equally appalling English translation of Jn 1:1b "The Word was with God," which might suffice to account for the grammar as pertaining to human beings but hardly elucidates the context of divine hierarchy.
It's ridiculous that you, who cannot even read the language, would criticize perfectly good translations. There is nothing wrong with any of these translations, but your paraphrase is trash.
It's ridiculous that you who cannot even under English, let alone Greek, would criticize me.
Remind me, which of us just wrote "you who cannot even under [sic] English"? I don't have to criticize you. You betray what you are and what your opinions are worth with nearly every post you make.
True, you don't have to criticize me. That you do so is because, as I have pointed out before, you are addicted to slander in suggesting that I cannot read the language. You break every forum rule by failing to address the topic and attacking the poster. It's sad that there is no moderation here.
I haven't made any personal remarks about you in this thread, cjab. You cannot read Greek. This is a fact, not an attack.
It's a fact that your belief system pertains to a Sabellian universe like those who know no Greek. At least they have an excuse. You OTOH have none. (I thought my post might entice the Sabellians here out of the woodwork. I was right.)
Knowing Greek has nothing to do with one's theology. Those that know Greek and those that don't can reach the same conclusions. Those that know Greek are aware of this fact. You've only given more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. Besides, if those "who know no Greek" must be "Sabellians" then you would be a "Sabellian".
I don't need excuses. I have supported my claims with evidence that you can't refute repeatedly. You live in a world of make-believe.
That's your motive for your post? That's a pretty sad reason to hijack a thread.
Facts don't change according to your acceptance of them.
I may be Oneness but I do not call myself a Sabellian. You are incorrectly labeling me, but I really don't care.
It's a fact that early on, the Greek world orientated towards subordinationism, the Roman world to sabellianism. Some popes are suspected of Sabellianism. The greatest scholars such as Eusebius were construed almost as heretics by the Latins. In this language is important when considering the different approaches. The inability of one language to reflect all that another language is saying is incontroversial. You however repudiate it. I find many of your teachings strange and incredible.
Neither did the pharisees.
I was responding to another poster. You have hijacked this thread to engage in ad hominem attacks, as is your wont. I have already opined that you know very little of Christianity. You seem to believe in exceptionalism for sabellians. So does the Roman antichrist.
"Oneness Pentecostalism can be compared to Sabellianism, or can be described as holding to a form of Sabellianism, as both are nontrinitarian, and as both believe that Jesus was "Almighty God in the Flesh"" [source]
I can affirm that I'm not a Trinitarian and that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh. The resemblance to Sabellianism stops there. I understand the incarnation differently, not as sequential roles played by God.
That is sabellianism.
The concept of Sabellianism emphasizes that the only distinction between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit is "economy" or function in salvation. They are otherwise of the same "essence" i.e. apart from economy the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are individually indistinguishable from each other, as they are all "God Almighty (period)."
Actually that isn't saying much. What is important is to state exactly how Jesus/the Word and the Father are distinguishable (if at all). If you can't or won't do this, you are a disguised sabellian.
Again that is a meaningless label. Many Trinitarians deny any substance to the kenosis, although they pretend to agree with it, but nonsensically.
Whatever: he slanders me continuously. I am certainly not oneness, as I am a subordinationist, which is irreconcilable with oneness.
I have never denied "the deity of Christ." TRJM can speak for himself.
I'm not sure how you think I repudiate this, since it wasn't mentioned in what I've said here, but, for once, you are correct. Nearly all thoughts can be translated from one language to another.
Then you suffer from unwillingness to accept what is written. When the text says something about Jesus/the Word being God, you try to find some way to make it refer to the Father.
And I was responding to your junk paraphrase. Please, show me where I have attacked you here, cjab. You keep making this false accusation so at least try to substantiate it.
As far as I know, cjab hasn't said what he is until now. I believe I've mentioned to you before that I'm not aware of the distinctions between the labels Oneness/Unitarian/etc. I don't use them in a technical sense.
