Does God have eyes?

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.
It is not a false statement to affirm that there is no "default context of 'o theos'". There is no default meaning of a word. Each usage has to be understood by the context in which it was used. You incorrectly assume that there is a "default context of 'o theos'" and this leads you to deny that "o theos" is applied to Jesus and to invent grammar that contradicts your assumptions.

In the case of John 20:28, if "o theos" is a default reference to "the Father" then an additional modifier "my" or "your" cannot change the usage to another referent. It would be enough to say "o theos" is always a reference to the Father. However, that is not accurate because "o theos" isn't used exclusively for "the Father" in the New Testament. The next thing would be to realize that the modifiers "my" or "your" can (again, if one doesn't hold the assumption that "the default context of 'o theos' is the Father") change the relationships between the terms, but it doesn't always. Imagine the phrase "o theos mou" spoken by Nebuchadnezzar compared with the same statement spoken by Daniel. Now imagine the same statement made by Peter and Paul. The change of the referent is on the basis of context not grammar, because you know that the God of Daniel, Peter, and Paul is different from that of Nebuchadnezzar. The grammar is the same, but the referent changes based upon context.

You are making statements about the grammar that aren't accurate, and you are making incompatible arguments.
As to the primary usage of "o theos" by Jesus, it involves a personal context which is the default context. Here "o theos" always defers to his Father.
Jesus is/was just as capable of speaking of a false god using "o theos" as anyone else is/was. "Default context" doesn't exist.
It's not even worthy of remark when theos is used of a false god. This is so obvious that it doesn't require elucidation or remark.
It shouldn't be worthy of comment. But you still don't understand it, so here we are. There exists no "default" usage of "theos". That faulty assumption is unique to you, in this discussion at least.
There is another context besides the purely personal context which is the doctrinal context, e.g. John 10:34-36, which explains the way in which the Father delegates his authority. He invests his authority in others besides himself, and confers divine recognition upon them, not because they are inherently divine (they may, or may not, originate from heaven), but because they have been imbued (even if temporarily) with the Father's authority. For men, this is the Hebrew Elohim context. The YHWH context is mostly a personal relating to the Father (e.g. Ps 110:1), but can involve angels / heavenly agents as intermediaries. In this respect the Word functions/governs as YHWH, but the title belongs to the Father. Of himself, as man originating from heaven, Jesus explains this doctrine as including himself as "God's Son." This is official doctrine even per John 10:36.

The doctrinal context does not violate the personal context. Rather it is an extension to it.
Again, since the meaning of the term is based upon context one has to look at the situation in which the statements were made. Jesus/the word was first called "theos" while he was with God. When Jesus became a man it is clear that he was no longer God in the same sense that he was before. After his resurrection, it is unclear exactly what Jesus is, and this is the situation when Jesus spoke with Mary and Thomas. To claim that the each of these usages must mean the same thing in these different contexts requires evidence. It can't be disregarded on the basis of an assumption.
You have not "corrected me" but eviscerate all such biblical distinctions, when you pretend that the title "o theos" can be applied equally to the Father, or to the Son or to the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Father.
It can be applied to "the Father" or "the Son" or "the Holy Spirit". As far as I can recall, I've never used the term "equally", but that would be acceptable considering that they are all God and don't cease to be so solely because they aren't in focus.
This much is assinine nonsense. In fact I don't believe there is a single instance in the entire Greek NT where Jesus or the Holy Spirit is alluded to as "o theos", apart from where the article is used to force a vocative in the LXX Greek translation of a Hebrew passage that itself does not contain the article (Heb 1:8), and which refers in the Hebrew to Elohim (not YHWH - Ps 45:6). As I have pointed out, the LXX could just as well have translated the Hebrew Elohim here by the Gk kyrios. There is nothing in this usage which violates anything I have said above.
What is nonsense is your apparent belief that the presence or absence of an article necessarily changes the referent of "theos". Passages like John 1:18 "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο." and even John 10:33 "ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν." make it clear that the absence of the article alone does not change the referent. (And it shouldn't need to be said that the case a word is in doesn't matter.)
 
However, that is not accurate because "o theos" isn't used exclusively for "the Father" in the New Testament.
What precisely does that statement mean ?

In the GNT, when the servants of the True God use the word ὁ θεός to refer to their God, it only ever means "the Father." You have built your theory otherwise on the strength of one or two dubious examples, like John 20:28. On this score, remember the parable of the fool who built his house upon sand .
 
Yes, per Eusebius of Caesarea, the word homousios was inserted in the Nicene Creed solely by the personal order of Constantine. And since no one can describe the "substance of God" who is Spirit, then the term is political rather than theological (which is presumably why it isn't found in the bible.)

This leads to a further issue: what is it that defines "God"? Trinitarians allege it is "substance" (Gk: ousia) but the bible knows nothing of it.
The term substance belongs to greek theology
not christianity… Aristotle taking platonic concepts of being and expressing them in terms of greek physics in his philosophical texts, such as the Summa in response to the islamicist philosopher Averroes.

it is clearer to say nature, without pagan baggage… where God’s nature is nothing like the satanic nature described in aristotelian substance.
 
when the servants of the True God use the word ὁ θεός to refer to their God, it only ever means "the Father."
I don't know what's confusing about this. This quote implies that there are times when "o theos" does not refer to "the Father". We see instances where it does not refer to "the Father" in the New Testament and those examples aren't "dubious". You are assuming that passages like John 20:28 refer to "the Father" because of your preconceived notions.
 
I don't know what's confusing about this. This quote implies that there are times when "o theos" does not refer to "the Father". We see instances where it does not refer to "the Father" in the New Testament and those examples aren't "dubious".
Could you give us all of the verses where this is apparently the case ?

You are assuming that passages like John 20:28 refer to "the Father" because of your preconceived notions.
Because grammatically and contextually it makes the most sense that ὁ θεός in John 20:28 refers to the Father.
 
Last edited:
The term substance belongs to greek theology
not christianity… Aristotle taking platonic concepts of being and expressing them in terms of greek physics in his philosophical texts, such as the Summa in response to the islamicist philosopher Averroes.
That is an English word used to translate Trinitarians' definition of οὐσία.

it is clearer to say nature, without pagan baggage… where God’s nature is nothing like the satanic nature described in aristotelian substance.

Again, this is just another English word Trinitarians use to say οὐσία.

You seem to have it all wrong. The definition which Trinitarians have given to the word οὐσία belongs to post biblical Greek theology (specifically to Nicene- Chalcedonian Christianity); the English words "substance" or "nature" are mere translations which follow this novel definition as it pertains to an articulation of the so-called "Trinity doctrine."
 
Last edited:
That is an English word used to translate Trinitarians' definition of οὐσία.



Again, this is just another English word Trinitarians use to say οὐσία.

You seem to have it all wrong. The definition which Trinitarians have given to the word οὐσία belongs to post biblical Greek theology (specifically to Nicene- Chalcedonian Christianity); the English words "substance" or "nature" are mere translations which follow this novel definition as it pertains to an articulation of the so-called "Trinity doctrine."
philosophical terms are not just words and how they are used does indicate the philosophical context.
 
Could you give us all of the verses where this is apparently the case ?
There's no need for me to do so. A single example is all that is needed to make the point I have made, and I have given you several.
Because grammatically and contextually it makes the most sense that ὁ θεός in John 20:28 refers to the Father.
"The Father" isn't in the immediate context, and the statement was directed to Jesus. Your interpretation does not fit the text.
 
Current Events & Politics -
Topic: 10 system to help USA change to prepare for the future ! Alternative economies ?

The heavens(the religious environment of the Old and New Testaments) and the earth(Israel, the clay, the dry land), which are now, by the same Word of GOD are kept and reserved unto FIRE against this Day of Judgment -the Judgment Seat of Christ-2Corinthians 5:v.10- and perdition of ungodly men, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Seeing then that all these things shall be DISSOLVED (yeah, the two Covenant - OLD and NEW Testaments- will 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 -(this Day arrived, the Lord's Day, that is the seventh and last Day in fulfillment Daniel 9:v.27 week 70th, the last week, the last week of the current Devil's world) , wherein the heavens (the two Covenants) being on fire shall be DISSOLVED, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? according 2 Peter 3.

By the way, first GOD so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of GOD. John chap 3:v.16, and so on.

Yeah, first GOD so loved the world, but now, even now, from now on, ALL THINGS WILL BE DISSOLVED, including the two covenants-Old and New Testament-, and now GOD will send STRONG DELUSION, that MAN of sin, the son of perdition, A FALSE MESSIAH-John 5:v.43-47-, an esoteric, and KABBALISTIC, and spiritist messiah, that they should believe a lie, and that THEY ALL might be damned who believed not the Truth-believed not in JESUS as say Scriptures-, but had pleasure in unrighteousness-2 Thess.2. THEY ALL are lost by the Word of GOD. What matters and prevails is the Word of GOD. The Word is GOD, yeah, the Word is self executing, understand? For better understanding of the readers, for example: The Word said: A virgin will conceive, this IMPOSSIBLE event fulfilled LITERALLY centuries after, and the Word was made flesh and was born JESUS. Yeah, the Word is GOD. https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-word-is-god-great-mystery.2494/

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in GOD. John 3:v.19-21.

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens (the next heavens are first the 3rd heaven- the Kingdom of GOD-Revelation 11:v.15-19- , for a thousand years, see Luke 20:v.35-36-check it-, and after this millennium, will be established the heaven of the heavens-the Eternity) and a new earth (a new Israel - 144K , the saved reminant), wherein dwelleth righteousness, as is written in 2 Peter 3:v.13.

Be careful and get ready, and pay attention: GOD WILL SEND STRONG DELUSION

 
There's no need for me to do so. A single example is all that is needed to make the point I have made, and I have given you several.
Earth is a separate linguistic context from heaven. You engage a double standard, because on the one hand, it is you who frequently stress the use of "o theos" to denote false gods in the jurisdiction of the earth, but then cannot distinguish the application of theos to men from the application of theos to what is in heaven. "Theos" does not bear the same connotation.

If Jesus could distinguish the application of theos to men, as constrasted with the application of theos to heaven, in John 10:34-36 then so should you. That you reject John 10:34-36 is all we need to know.

It is theologically impermissible to allow "theos" to bear the same connotation in earth, as in heaven. Anyone who does this idolizes the flesh, and is immature.

"The Father" isn't in the immediate context, and the statement was directed to Jesus. Your interpretation does not fit the text.
Unless a false god, the Father is always involved: the distinguishing being in whether man/angel/son of God is being denoted as the Father's agent on earth, or whether the Father himself is being denoted in heaven.

The idea that a Sabellian formula can be derived from John 20:28 is ludicrous. Jesus unambiguously stated the theological position vis-a-vis himself and his Father in John 20:17,, but which teaching you reject.
 
Last edited:
There's no need for me to do so. A single example is all that is needed to make the point I have made, and I have given you several.

"The Father" isn't in the immediate context, and the statement was directed to Jesus. Your interpretation does not fit the text.
False. You have not given me a single irrefutable example.
 
What is nonsense is your apparent belief that the presence or absence of an article necessarily changes the referent of "theos". Passages like John 1:18 "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο." and even John 10:33 "ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν." make it clear that the absence of the article alone does not change the referent. (And it shouldn't need to be said that the case a word is in doesn't matter.)

I have never said that the referent of "theos" is changed by the article, although it might be possible in certain specific contexts. Rather, it is the personal/impersonal and subjective/objective connotations that change with the grammar. Where the article is not used, it is often the properties of God, or the actions/functions/nature of God that is denoted.

You do not appear to have any good grasp of the usage of the article in Greek, and seem to be incapable of applying the article to "theos."

It's not acceptable to attack other people when you yourself are incapable of explaining the usage of the Greek definite article.

You can't live your whole life in a state of denial. Unless you have something positive to contribute, such as a coherent account of when the article is and isn't used, especially relating to theos, you should hold back on your attacks.
 
Earth is a separate linguistic context from heaven.
This is nothing more than an assertion without evidence. It is clear that Jesus/the word is referred to as "o theos" while in heaven and while on earth. You have no justification for the distinction you are making here.
You engage a double standard, because on the one hand, it is you who frequently stress the use of "o theos" to denote false gods in the jurisdiction of the earth, but then cannot distinguish the application of theos to men from the application of theos to what is in heaven. "Theos" does not bear the same connotation.
I have never argued for distinctions based upon "the jurisdiction" of their usage. I have engaged with this fallacious idea of yours to show that you don't pay attention to your own imagined distinctions between heaven/earth or acknowledge the actual difference between Jesus during his incarnation and Jesus after his resurrection. You are way off-base to accuse me of a double standard concerning a position I don't hold or acknowledge.
If Jesus could distinguish the application of theos to men, as constrasted with the application of theos to heaven, in John 10:34-36 then so should you. That you reject John 10:34-36 is all we need to know.
I've given you the reasons for my rejection of the concept, and you have done nothing but deny them. You haven't made a single argument for why my reasons aren't valid.
It is theologically impermissible to allow "theos" to bear the same connotation in earth, as in heaven. Anyone who does this idolizes the flesh, and is immature.
Yet another assertion without evidence, and your assertion is without teeth. God is recorded as appearing on several occasions in the Bible to men in various ways without any noting of him being a different "theos" because of it.
Unless a false god, the Father is always involved: the distinguishing being in whether man/angel/son of God is being denoted as the Father's agent on earth, or whether the Father himself is being denoted in heaven.
As I said, if God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one God, then a reference to one is a reference to all with a different focus. You are mistakenly shifting the focus.
The idea that a Sabellian formula can be derived from John 20:28 is ludicrous. Jesus unambiguously stated the theological position vis-a-vis himself and his Father in John 20:17,, but which teaching you reject.
You have missed the distinction Jesus makes throughout his entire gospel between the people and himself through his entire earthly ministry. I'm going to try to grab them all so you can see it; please, check for yourself to make sure I don't overlook one.
"Your Father"
John 8:19 - They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

John 8:38 - I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

John 8:41 - You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.”

John 8:42 - Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 8:44 - You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.


"My Father"
John 5:17 - But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

John 6:32 - Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

John 6:40 - For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 8:19 - They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

John 8:38 - I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

John 8:49 - Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.

John 8:54 - Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’

John 10:18 - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

John 10:29 - My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

John 10:37 - If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;

John 14:7 - If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

John 14:20 - In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

John 14:21 - Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

John 14:23 - Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

John 15:1 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.

John 15:8 - By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.

John 15:15 - No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

John 15:23 - Whoever hates me hates my Father also.

John 15:24 - If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.

"Our Father"
John 4:12 - Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.”

John 8:39 - They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did,

John 8:53 - Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”

You should notice here that Jesus never refers to God as "our Father".

"My God"/"Your God"
John 20:17 - Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

John 20:17 is the only time Jesus indicates that his Father and His God are the same as those of his disciples. Even while doing so, he maintains the distinction he made throughout his earthly ministry. It is only after his resurrection that he acknowledges the people's relationship with God. This is something that you have appeared to miss in the gospel.

Jesus having a God is no reason to suppose that he is not God when John calls him God and attributes to him Godly acts. You simply don't want to believe all of what John wrote.
 
I have never said that the referent of "theos" is changed by the article, although it might be possible in certain specific contexts.
You've not said it, but you act like it is. This is clear in John 1:1. There are several reasons why the article could've been omitted in that verse the two most obvious are to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative while John emphasizes "God" in relation to the word. The second is that new topics/first mentions are generally introduced ananthrously.
Rather, it is the personal/impersonal and subjective/objective connotations that change with the grammar. Where the article is not used, it is often the properties of God, or the actions/functions/nature of God that is denoted.
This is rubbish. This is almost always done by words, not an article. You place a greater emphasis on the article that it can bear. And it's funny how you only talk about the article in support of your fanciful interpretations. You deny the actual words used and place an almost mythical importance on the use/disuse of the article.
You do not appear to have any good grasp of the usage of the article in Greek, and seem to be incapable of applying the article to "theos."
Whatever you say, cjab.
It's not acceptable to attack other people when you yourself are incapable of explaining the usage of the Greek definite article.
I've not attacked you, cjab. If you think I've attacked you, flag it. We can make a game of it. You go first and flag all the places in this thread where you think I've attacked you. Let me know when you're finished, and I'll flag you. Wanna play?
You can't live your whole life in a state of denial. Unless you have something positive to contribute, such as a coherent account of when the article is and isn't used, especially relating to theos, you should hold back on your attacks.
You plainly demonstrate your ignorance of Greek grammar here, cjab. The grammatical role of the article hasn't been perfectly defined by anyone. However, the general ideas are well known, and the article isn't used uniquely when used with "theos". You are the one who claims otherwise, and you have not provided any explanations or justifications for your idiosyncratic thoughts on the subject.
 
You've not said it, but you act like it is. This is clear in John 1:1. There are several reasons why the article could've been omitted in that verse the two most obvious are to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative while John emphasizes "God" in relation to the word. The second is that new topics/first mentions are generally introduced ananthrously.
The emphasis on God would have been redundant if John was making a statement of equivalence between o theos and o logos, so your conjecture for maintaining a distinction between subject and predicate doesn't stack up.

This is rubbish. This is almost always done by words, not an article. You place a greater emphasis on the article that it can bear. And it's funny how you only talk about the article in support of your fanciful interpretations. You deny the actual words used and place an almost mythical importance on the use/disuse of the article.
You are talking rubbish by your own averment, for as you suggested above, the anarthrous use of theos is to distinguish the predicate from the subject. A predicate clearly has a different connotation from a subject, and the distinction is denoted by the article.

Whatever you say, cjab.

I've not attacked you, cjab. If you think I've attacked you, flag it. We can make a game of it. You go first and flag all the places in this thread where you think I've attacked you. Let me know when you're finished, and I'll flag you. Wanna play?
There's no moderation on this forum, but even worse than you attacking me is that you don't appear to be able to say anything coherent.

You plainly demonstrate your ignorance of Greek grammar here, cjab. The grammatical role of the article hasn't been perfectly defined by anyone. However, the general ideas are well known, and the article isn't used uniquely when used with "theos". You are the one who claims otherwise, and you have not provided any explanations or justifications for your idiosyncratic thoughts on the subject.
I do no such thing, because what you fail to allow is that the article in often being used to distinguish subject from predicate, and in serving to reinforce what is definite and personal, it does have semantic connotations.

The article with theos usually denotes the person of God (the Father) as subject. But not always. In 2 Cor 5:19, anarthrous theos is subject. A subject can be anarthrous if it is a proper noun. A proper noun is a noun that serves as the name for a specific place, person, or thing. My own impression is that the article is used with theos to specifically denote the person of God, as opposed to his operations (cf. 2 Cor 5:19).
____________________________________
Winer

"When ό, ή, τό, stands before a noun as a true article, it indicates that the object is conceived as definite, either from its nature, or from the context, or by reference to a circle of ideas which is assumed to be familiar to the reader's mind. The article refers to well-known facts, arrangements, or doctrines.

Proper names, as they already denote definite individuals, do not need the article, but they frequently receive it as the existing symbol of definiteness. The use of the article with names of persons can hardly be reduced to any rule ; see Bernh. p. 317, Mad v. 13 (Don. p. 347,
Jelf 450. 1) : a comparison of passages will readily show that the practice of the writers in this respect is very irregular.
The rule that a proper name has not the article when first introduced, but receives it on repeated mention, will not go far in explaining the actual usage.

The substantive with the article may as correctly form the predicate as the subject of a sentence (though from the nature of the case it will more frequently be the subject), since the predicate may be conceived as a definite individual. In the Ν. T. the predicate has the article much more frequently than is commonly supposed....Hence the rule often laid down, that the subject of a sentence may be known from its having the article, is incorrect; as was already perceived by Glass and Rambach (Instit. Hermen. p. 44G).

In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impossible that the article should be omitted where it is absolutely necessary (compare on the other hand § 19), or inserted where it is not required.

On the other hand, there are cases in which the article may be either inserted or omitted with equal objective correctness.


Appellatives which, as denoting definite objects, should naturally have the article, are in certain cases used without it, not only in the Ν. T., but also in the best Greek writers: see Schsefer, Melet. p. 4. Such an omission, however, takes place only when it occasions no ambiguity, and does not leave the reader in donbt whether he is to regard the word as definite or indefinite. Hence :

(a) The article is omitted before words which denote objects of which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names.

θεός is frequently anarthrous,—most frequently by far in the Epistles.

In the following cases especially the article is omitted
with this word :—
1) When the genitive θεου is dependent on another (anarthrous)
noun : L. iii. 2, Kom. iii. 5, viii. 9, xv. 7, 8, 32 \_Rec.~], 1 C. iii. 16,
xi. 7, 2 C, i. 12, viii. 5, E. v. 5, 1 Th. ii. 13.2

(2) In the phrases θεός πατήρ, 1 C. i. 3, 2 C. i. 2, G. i. 1, Ph. i. 2,
ii. 11, 1 P. i. 2 ; viol or τέκνα θεου, Mt v. 9, Rom. viii. 14,10, G-. iii.
26, Ph. ii. 15, 1 Jo. iii. 1, 2 (where these governing nouns also are
without the article 3).

(3) With prepositions : as άπο θεου, Jo. iii. 2, xvi. 30, Rom. xiii. 1
[Rec.], 1 C. i. 30, vi. 19 ; iv θεώ, Jo. iii. 21, Rom. ii. 17 ; IK food, A.
v. 39, 2 C. v. 1, Ph. iii. 9 ; κατί θεόν, Rom. viii. 27 ; παρά θεω, 2 Th.
i. 6, 1 P. ii. 4. Similarly with an adjective in 1 Th. i. 9, θεω ζωντι
καϊ άλ-ηθινω.—In Jo. i. 1 (θεός ήν ο λόγος), the article could not have
been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ό θεός,
because in such a connexion θεός without the article would.be
ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis
πρός τόν θεόν, ver. 1, 2,. and from the whole description
of the λόγος, that John wrote θεός designedly. Similarly,
in 1 P. iv. 19 we find πιστός κτίστης without the article
 
The emphasis on God would have been redundant if John was making a statement of equivalence between o theos and o logos, so your conjecture for maintaining a distinction between subject and predicate doesn't stack up. You are talking rubbish by your own averment, for as you suggested above,
You are confused once more. I never said "John was making a statement of equivalence between o theos and o logos" so your comment here doesn't pertain to anything.
the anarthrous use of theos is to distinguish the predicate from the subject.
I don't know why you would argue with this. Even though you don't know Greek, you should be able to look for yourself and see this is true.
A predicate clearly has a different connotation from a subject, and the distinction is denoted by the article.
What does this nonsense even mean? The predicate will be a different word from the subject, of course it will have a different meaning! What you mean by "connotation" is anyone's guess.
There's no moderation on this forum, but even worse than you attacking me is that you don't appear to be able to say anything coherent.
I said for you to flag the posts of mine that you imagine to be attacks on you and let me know when you are done. That way I can do the same for you. If you did this, you might finally see that you haven't been attacked and that you are the one making all the attacks. With any luck you'd stop whining about things that have never occurred.
I do no such thing, because what you fail to allow is that the article in often being used to distinguish subject from predicate,
So you imagine I fail to allow the things I just said?
and in serving to reinforce what is definite and personal, it does have semantic connotations.
The article isn't needed for something to be "definite" or "personal", and I don't know what you mean by "semantic connotations". "Semantic connotations" is word salad.
The article with theos usually denotes the person of God (the Father) as subject. But not always. In 2 Cor 5:19, anarthrous theos is subject. A subject can be anarthrous if it is a proper noun. A proper noun is a noun that serves as the name for a specific place, person, or thing. My own impression is that the article is used with theos to specifically denote the person of God, as opposed to his operations (cf. 2 Cor 5:19).
The nominative case is the subject of a sentence with or without an article. It is only in instances where a predicate nominative is used that confusion can arise if the article is not used with the subject or used with both the subject and the predicate. "Theos" functions the same way as all other words in this respect.

It is impossible to take you "own impression" seriously since you can't even read the language. Your proposal is born from your desire to make the text say what you want it to say. Here's an example from the very same chapter we've been discussing to illustrate the point. "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο." What grammarian can you cite to support your rule?
____________________________________
Winer

"When ό, ή, τό, stands before a noun as a true article, it indicates that the object is conceived as definite, either from its nature, or from the context, or by reference to a circle of ideas which is assumed to be familiar to the reader's mind. The article refers to well-known facts, arrangements, or doctrines.

Proper names, as they already denote definite individuals, do not need the article, but they frequently receive it as the existing symbol of definiteness. The use of the article with names of persons can hardly be reduced to any rule ; see Bernh. p. 317, Mad v. 13 (Don. p. 347,
Jelf 450. 1) : a comparison of passages will readily show that the practice of the writers in this respect is very irregular.
The rule that a proper name has not the article when first introduced, but receives it on repeated mention, will not go far in explaining the actual usage.

The substantive with the article may as correctly form the predicate as the subject of a sentence (though from the nature of the case it will more frequently be the subject), since the predicate may be conceived as a definite individual. In the Ν. T. the predicate has the article much more frequently than is commonly supposed....Hence the rule often laid down, that the subject of a sentence may be known from its having the article, is incorrect; as was already perceived by Glass and Rambach (Instit. Hermen. p. 44G).

In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impossible that the article should be omitted where it is absolutely necessary (compare on the other hand § 19), or inserted where it is not required.

On the other hand, there are cases in which the article may be either inserted or omitted with equal objective correctness.


Appellatives which, as denoting definite objects, should naturally have the article, are in certain cases used without it, not only in the Ν. T., but also in the best Greek writers: see Schsefer, Melet. p. 4. Such an omission, however, takes place only when it occasions no ambiguity, and does not leave the reader in donbt whether he is to regard the word as definite or indefinite. Hence :

(a) The article is omitted before words which denote objects of which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names.

θεός is frequently anarthrous,—most frequently by far in the Epistles.

In the following cases especially the article is omitted
with this word :—
1) When the genitive θεου is dependent on another (anarthrous)
noun : L. iii. 2, Kom. iii. 5, viii. 9, xv. 7, 8, 32 \_Rec.~], 1 C. iii. 16,
xi. 7, 2 C, i. 12, viii. 5, E. v. 5, 1 Th. ii. 13.2

(2) In the phrases θεός πατήρ, 1 C. i. 3, 2 C. i. 2, G. i. 1, Ph. i. 2,
ii. 11, 1 P. i. 2 ; viol or τέκνα θεου, Mt v. 9, Rom. viii. 14,10, G-. iii.
26, Ph. ii. 15, 1 Jo. iii. 1, 2 (where these governing nouns also are
without the article 3).

(3) With prepositions : as άπο θεου, Jo. iii. 2, xvi. 30, Rom. xiii. 1
[Rec.], 1 C. i. 30, vi. 19 ; iv θεώ, Jo. iii. 21, Rom. ii. 17 ; IK food, A.
v. 39, 2 C. v. 1, Ph. iii. 9 ; κατί θεόν, Rom. viii. 27 ; παρά θεω, 2 Th.
i. 6, 1 P. ii. 4. Similarly with an adjective in 1 Th. i. 9, θεω ζωντι
καϊ άλ-ηθινω.—In Jo. i. 1 (θεός ήν ο λόγος), the article could not have
been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ό θεός,
because in such a connexion θεός without the article would.be
ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis
πρός τόν θεόν, ver. 1, 2,. and from the whole description
of the λόγος, that John wrote θεός designedly. Similarly,
in 1 P. iv. 19 we find πιστός κτίστης without the article
Great job, you found an antiquated resource that confirms what I just said: "The grammatical role of the article hasn't been perfectly defined by anyone." The general guidelines I gave above still account for the usage of the article more often than not. You did notice that Winer didn't give his own guidelines on the subject, didn't you?
 
That is false, none of your examples are irrefutable, all lend themselves to more than one reading. For instance at John 20:28 ὁ Θεός easily could refer to the Father. There is nothing grammatically or contextually preventing this understanding. Infact to equate ὁ Θεός here with Jesus is highly dubious.

You haven't made a successful argument against any of them.

What precisely is that supposed to mean ?
 
Back
Top