I have demanded that you learn some Greek.
And I have demanded that you pray to God for understanding. Which do you suppose is more important?
I have stressed the different grammatical context of theos in Jn 1:1c to Jn 1:1b.
And I have shown you that Theos can refer to anyone as God
The fact that you ignore everything I say is the reason why there is no point in debating with you.
That is not a reason to not debate since you ignore everything I say. You want others to accept everything you say while you reject everything they say.
I may as well speak to a brick wall as speak to you.
Then go speak to a brick wall, a brick wall should understand another brick wall?
I recognize that I'm wasting my time as your mind is full of venom against all who oppose your position,
I did not write this, did I?
which is Jesus=Logos, which position is absurd, because the Son, the human being,
is never referred to in the titular sense as "the Logos" except in statements of identity (i.e. the human Son does not bear the title "Logos" which is contrivance on your part).
Who do you suppose this in red is referring to?
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called
The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
Let me repeat: an anarthrous-predicate-noun usage of theos is NOT the same as a titular usage of theos denoted by theos + definite article.
What you are saying is that the noun Theos is not the same as the noun Theos. Here is your problem. For some reason, you seem to think that people spit out written words when they speak...How do you know the difference between "god" and "God" when a person is speaking? Both are title nouns. God/god is not a type of entity or a race of beings, God/ god is a title given to those who are esteemed supernatural or have great power... It is the same with the word Elohim. Greek Gods/ gods have human features as depicted in the drawings and statues. The Hebrew God has no shape or form since no one has seen him to draw him or make a statue of him. Greeks have many Gods while the Hebrews have only one.
Given that the referent of anarthrous theos in Jn 1:1c can only be definite titular theos in Jn 1:1b, then the meaning of theos in Jn 1:1c naturally follows.
Given that the Hebrews have only one god it follows that YHWH God cannot have another God with him.
But you have already denigrated theos to be a relative term that admits of no certain identification with YHWH.
the identification is his son. Jesus is praying and says that he was with the father, in the beginning, he is not saying that someone else was there... You seem to be saying that the Logos was someone else in the beginning with God.
You appeal to pagan literature, like JM.
Greek is a pagan language, you seem holden to it.
You fail to grasp the usage of theos in the NT.
How so? I grasp when it refers to the Hebrew God it is referring to one entity YHWH.
So your conception of theos becomes as manipulatable as a pagan idol, which is your heresy: that you allow yourself to create a man-made theos contrary to what the NT teaches.
The Greek conception of Theos is rooted in idolatry and paganism. You hold to the Greek understanding. What could be more heretical than that?
The Logos is not strictly the "Son of God" because that would be to admit the validity of the arguments of the Sabellians/polytheists who conceive of three Gods in heaven, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
a conclusion like that would make God a liar...
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus said God is his father so based on what Jesus said it follows that the voice must be the voice of God. You admitted that the Logos is Jesus. Jn1 says the Logos was made flesh. Based on what scripture are you saying that the Logos was not made flesh/ Jesus therefore not strictly the son of God?
The nonsense about three Gods fall at your feet...since you believe the word was God, and the Word was with God
Rather the Logos "became the Son of God" Jn 1:14.
Semantics. Made / Became it changes nothing. In fact, it proves that the translation of "the word was God ' is not the best.
The term Father is contextual to usage of "Son." There is no Father without the Son, and both are contextual to the jurisdiction of earth.
You are straying from the argument...If you are saying the Logos is not Jesus and God is not a father without Jesus then God saying that Israel is his son makes him a liar. It also begs the question who is Adam's father if not God?
That is why "Father" does not apply to "the Logos" and why "Father" is not mentioned in Jn 1:1c, and not until Jn 1:14.
The word father not being mentioned does not make God not a father...
God is the Father of Jesus, not the Logos. There is no scripture which says "God is the Father of the Logos."
God knew Jeremiah before he was born...The Logos is Jesus before he was born. Your argument is silly. God is the father of the Logos
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
God is the father of the Logos...
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Depends on whether you are talking about Jesus the man or the ascended Jesus, which latter is now in the same position as the Logos in Jn 1:1c, i.e. anarthrous-predicate-noun usage of theos - see also Rev Ch 1 etc.
It is the same, Jesus. You seem to be saying that Jesus the man died and a different Jesus was resurrected, and a different Jesus ascended.The same Jesus came out from God...
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
Your comments above suggest you believe there are different Jesus. You spoke of a Jesus the man and an ascended Jesus... There is only one Jesus...
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Please be mindful of the fact that you know no Greek, and perhaps more importantly, are not in the least concerned to learn Greek, and so are not in a position to lecture anyone on this forum (biblical languages) about what passages like Jn 1:1 mean.
Please be mindful that all the Greek that you know is useless without the understanding that God gives.
Go and read some articles written by scholars instead of spouting human-contrived nonsense.
Go and pray to God for understanding.
So why do you keep posting it?