Of course "mou" would change the meaning. "The God of me" (Jn 20:28) is not the same thing as saying "the God of Jesus" (Jn 20:17). It is you who cannot read Greek, or English.
You are talking BS, usual. I do wish you would stop attacking me with puerile ad hominem. You are full of the bitterest hatred for me.
"The God of me" and "the God of Jesus" are clearly the same if "the God" can only refer to one thing as you insist!
All I can surmise is that you don't know what an ad hominem is. I haven't attacked you, and I don't hate you. You are the one who has behaved poorly in this thread as is seen even in this post by your false claims about my reading ability in Greek and English.
You insist on "sameness", not me.
Words fail in describing your tactics and your incessant attacks on me. I now reallize that you have a psychological problem with this pathological addiction of yours. The more you exercise it, the worse it gets.
If "o theos" can only refer to one thing as you have previously said, they can't help but be the same. It is the inescapable conclusion of your position. Perhaps you have changed your position since then, but when I quote exactly what you've said you don't offer any guidance as to what you mean or what you meant or even acknowledge the apparent discrepancies. All you do is claim that you've been attacked and focus upon an inconsequential detail in the post. You insist on making statements that you have seemingly no interest and/or ability to defend.
That's because there have been no attacks on you in this thread.
Right.
One thing per context, tobe sure, but there are many different contexts. The God "of me" is a different context to the God of "Jesus" and to "the God" without any qualification.
You do not seem to have a brain.
You seem to be unable to understand anything I say in English, which you compensate for by attacking me.
If you can't understand me, and clearly it's very difficult for you, why do you even "try" to converse with me?Right.
You are the one who seems paranoid.
In every case you've given and in every case you can imagine, "o theos" would have the same referent regardless of how it is modified if what you asserted about the use "o theos" were true. I don't know why you don't understand this.
As I just said, you offer no clarifications or arguments. You just make more personal attacks.
I've not attacked you.
I understand you just fine. I correct your false information as it suits my whim, just as you continually make false statements and attack me at yours.
O theos may refers to the god of this world, or one's stomach or whatever. The referent of o theos is entirely contextual, as you have pointed out on many occasions, and the context is further refined by the use and non-use of articles.
You've finally abandoned your lost position. Good for you.
Right.
Yep.
The ultimate referent of "o theos" by believers is not necessarily God. It depends upon what is being said. For instance, in Php. 3:19 it is clearly not the ultimate referent. Your statement at the very least is in need of some refinement.
What I reject is your assumption that the purpose of the article here is to indicate and distinguish persons. I would say that by uniting the two groups under one article John is stressing that although the relationship between Jesus and God and the disciples and God is different (this view takes the use of the contrasting pronouns into consideration "my" and "your" rather than simply "our") they still are both united in God the Father.
So, you acknowledge the truth of what I stated above that the use of the article isn't necessarily to distinguish persons.
They refer to two distinct roles that Jesus serves. One is "Lord". The other is "God".
An allusion to God the Father, absolutely, for Jesus and the Father are one. But is also a statement that Jesus himself is God.
Distinction, yes. But there isn't enough evidence to claim that it is an ontological distinction. You omitted the reference to man being the head of woman in I Cor. 11:3, but it shows that the distinction isn't necessarily ontological, whether between Christ and God or Christ and man.
It's a demonstration of how Thomas's opinion about Jesus changed. I would say that it is theological, but there's no harm in your opinion here.
As I've said, if you only have John 1:1 how would you understand what John meant? You must interpret John 1:1 by something else John wrote. What is absurd to imagine is that Thomas is making another mistake by calling Jesus God and John lets it pass without mention.
Not unless you are able to admit that Jesus is God.
John also indisputably calls "the word" (1:1) and "Jesus" God. My position acknowledges this, and yours does not. I'm not the one with the problem.
Seems you are not a reader of the Word of GOD. The Word of God advises not to be ignorant about it.
Again, here also it seems you are not a reader of the Word of GOD. Which Adam are you talking about?
Seems you are not a reader of the Word of GOD. The Word of God advises not to be ignorant about it.
I understand, you are not seeing, but it is because you are sleeping deeply, so how could you see the literal fulfillment of the Word of GOD? The earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up, seeing then that all these things shall be DISSOLVED, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the Day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be DISSOLVED...(heavens have nothing to do with sky, the physical space of Universe, understand?)
All the current and next happenings is to force the manifestation of Satan incarnated as the esoteric and kabbalistic and spiritist false messiah em Israel-John 5:v.43-47 combinado com 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to 12, and Revelation 13:v.11 and so on. There will be two great religious and satanic Beasts on the earth in near future, and both will build a MONSTROUS and SATANIC religious system -Revelation 13:v.1 to 18, check it, and it will be the religious and universal and satanic Kingdom of Antichrist it before JESUS's coming, because JESUS is coming to reign here in this seventh and last Day, also called LORD's Day, and with each passing day He is closer to return, understand? https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ng-by-the-red-sea-and-by-the-red-dragon.2439/
Satan is the current ruler of all nations including China, of course, with their respective structures and with all kind of systems, say politic, religious, economic, social, military, and so on.
Six days were determined of works and one of GOD's rest, and JESUS, the heir of the Earth, must and will rule the whole Universe. The time of restitution of all things arrived.
Revelation 11:v. 4: - These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
Rather "does rule the whole universe."
hi tres unum sunt (the satanic trinity)
I have not abandoned my position. This is my position. It's just that you are dishonest enough to pretend I don't know the basic rules of language. Applying my remarks on o theos in one context to an obviously incongruent context, as you do, is mere propaganda, which is why your debating methods are scurrilous. Everyone knows words can import different meaning in different contexts. It's an elementary facet of every language. For to insinuate that I don't know this is nothing but a libel.
When did I say Thomas was making a mistake? He did not make a mistake. I said he was using Old Testament terminology to express a New testament truth. That is not to make a mistake, but to say he used language in a way that is unconventional in NT doctrine (e.g. as contrasted with the language of Peter's confession which is more conventional). This shows that NT doctrine is not necessary the exact same language as that used to express faith. People were intelligent enough to understand what the words used conveyed, without making a big issue out of it, as you do.
Absolutely absurd. Jesus is mediator between God and man. If he was God, he couldn't be a mediator. That mediator is indisputably a man. 1 Timothy 2:5. Jesus is the Son of God, again indisputably. You talk nonsense.
This much is untrue. Jesus is never "called God" and neither is the Word., where the English usage of the word "called" suggests the "title" of God is being imputed to Jesus by you. It never is. Rather it is everything bar the title of God that is being imputed to Jesus by virtue of his relation (in the broadest possible sense to include his unity) to the one who does hold the title "o theos", which is the Father.
You have made the same false statement in many different contexts and threads, and I have corrected it many times. You could have clarified your remarks on any of the many occasions I have pointed it out to you, even in this thread, but you chose not to do so. You have given lip service to the idea that "o theos" can refer to people and things other than "the Father" while simultaneously treating the phrase as though it only refers to the Father. This is apparent in this thread and to point out this fact is not libel.
I never said or implied that you said Thomas made a mistake. I made that claim, and I was referring to Thomas's initial disbelief (Jn. 20:25). If there had been something wrong with Thomas's remarks toward Jesus, one would've suspected it to be corrected as well. That's the point I was making.
Thomas's statement is a portion of New Testament doctrine.
And once more you are attempting to hold two conflicting positions. Here you are admitting that one does not have to use the exact same words to convey a thought and in other places you have denied it. For instance:
What happened is that you once again accused me of saying something I hadn't said and then blamed me for your mistake.
John 1:1 calls the Word "God". John 20:28 calls Jesus "God". You are in the strange position of saying that people are "intelligent enough to understand what the words used conveyed, without making a big issue out of it" and then denying the words that were actually used.
Apart from your apparent disagreement with your earlier statement, there is another problem. As the late Gryllus once pointed out to you: if "the Word" proceeds from "God", then to call "the Father" "God" while excluding "the Word" means that "the Father" does not encompass all of "God" since "the Word" which is inherently connected with him was excluded. The same holds true if you substitute "Jesus" for "the Word".
The funny thing about this is that your position is very similar to mine only you try to build your position on errant assumptions while disregarding and reinterpreting passages that you find difficult.
JESUS said: All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. - Matt.28:v.18
It is not a false statement to aver that the default context of "o theos" is the Father, and all other contexts exceptional. You are making a false statement if you aver anything else.
