Does God have eyes?

So why isn't anyone writing Greek?
I'm the only frequent poster here who can, and I admit I'm not great at it. I'm also the only regular poster here who can read Greek. The forum admin. at one point stated that English is to be the primary language used here.
 
He meant Jesus the Word existed in God

You do know that Adam means man, don't you?
ASV
So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

So why isn't anyone writing Greek?

Actors have roles...
I have concluded you are engaged in a straightforward and unconcealed nullification of John 1:1c, and as such you are here to promote propaganda born out of your own conceits.
 
He doesn't provide any support for "o theos" being an exclusive title for "the Father". You misunderstand him, so you think he does.
Both Greenlee and Moule directly agree with me, as does Caragounis, who directly equates "o theos" with the Father. (See A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1 by Caragounis and Van Der Watt).

Observation on p.117

"Greenlee [121] expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".

Moule [122] advocated the same position: "It is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

[121] Greenlee, Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39.
[122] Moule. Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76. 115-116.

p120 (Caragounis)

The article ό, ή, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing
substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being
general to particular and from being indefinite to definite.
.
.
The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject.
.
.
Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'43. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'.

When John wrote και Θεός ην ό Λόγος, he simply meant "and God
was the Word". This, expressed according to the English idiom, becomes:
"and the Word was God", although the emphasis of the original on Θεός
is gone. This is the best we can do in English, which, as has already been
hinted at, is not an adequate translation of the original. But the reason for
this, as we have seen above, is due to the fact that the uses of the Greek
article do not coincide with those of the English article.

p.138

The three clauses are beautifully structured. In the first clause John
asserts the eternity of the Word. In the second clause he asserts the relationship
of the Word to God (= the Father) and in the third clause he
asserts the fact that the Word was God.

The Word cannot be identified with the Θεός of Jn 1,1b, because in his Gospel John
intends to distinguish Θεός (= the Father) from Λόγος (the Son)
 
I have concluded you are engaged in a straightforward and unconcealed nullification of John 1:1c, and as such you are here to promote propaganda born out of your own conceits.
You can conclude whatever you want. Jn 1:1c literally goes against the teaching of the scriptures. Since you believe Jesus is the Word he cannot be God his father and the son of God at the same time. The scripture teaches us there is simplicity in Christ. Your version is as complex as one could get. In fact, you seem to believe if one cannot read Greek one cannot understand the scriptures.
 
You can conclude whatever you want. Jn 1:1c literally goes against the teaching of the scriptures. Since you believe Jesus is the Word he cannot be God his father and the son of God at the same time. The scripture teaches us there is simplicity in Christ. Your version is as complex as one could get. In fact, you seem to believe if one cannot read Greek one cannot understand the scriptures.

Yeah: if you can't read Greek, whatever you say is irrelevant. Don't care. My world is the world of scholars, not wannabees.
 
Both Greenlee and Moule directly agree with me, as does Caragounis, who directly equates "o theos" with the Father. (See A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1 by Caragounis and Van Der Watt).

Observation on p.117

"Greenlee [121] expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".

Moule [122] advocated the same position: "It is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

[121] Greenlee, Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39.
[122] Moule. Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76. 115-116.

p120 (Caragounis)

The article ό, ή, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing
substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being
general to particular and from being indefinite to definite.
.
.
The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject.
.
.
Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'43. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'.

When John wrote και Θεός ην ό Λόγος, he simply meant "and God
was the Word". This, expressed according to the English idiom, becomes:
"and the Word was God", although the emphasis of the original on Θεός
is gone. This is the best we can do in English, which, as has already been
hinted at, is not an adequate translation of the original. But the reason for
this, as we have seen above, is due to the fact that the uses of the Greek
article do not coincide with those of the English article.

p.138

The three clauses are beautifully structured. In the first clause John
asserts the eternity of the Word. In the second clause he asserts the relationship
of the Word to God (= the Father) and in the third clause he
asserts the fact that the Word was God.

The Word cannot be identified with the Θεός of Jn 1,1b, because in his Gospel John
intends to distinguish Θεός (= the Father) from Λόγος (the Son)
Your post suggests that John was a qualified Greek linguist. but John makes it clear that Jesus was not God by what he wrote. In fact, he tells us what we must believe.
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Being this articulate with what he wants us to believe , if john wanted us to believe at some point Jesus the word was God he would have repeated it don't you think?
 
Your post suggests that John was a qualified Greek linguist. but John makes it clear that Jesus was not God by what he wrote. In fact, he tells us what we must believe.
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Being this articulate with what he wants us to believe , if john wanted us to believe at some point Jesus the word was God he would have repeated it don't you think?
I don't know why you insist on calling "Jesus" by the title "The Word." They may be the same spiritual entity, but they don't exist in the same jurisdiction, and so are not comparable. Heaven and Earth are different worlds. What exists as man in one, exists with all the attributes of God in the other, bar the identity of the Father, who remains always above Christ, who n(i.e. Christ) is your de facto "God." If you don't acknowledge it, you're no Christian.
 
Yeah: if you can't read Greek, whatever you say is irrelevant. Don't care. My world is the world of scholars, not wannabees.
Is it your belief that all the apostles could read Greek? Is it your belief that only those who can read can be saved?
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

You trust in your worldly wisdom more than the understanding from God...Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
 
I don't know why you insist on calling "Jesus" by the title "The Word." They may be the same spiritual entity, but they don't exist in the same jurisdiction, and so are not comparable.
John thinks they are...
1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Heaven and Earth are different worlds. What exists as man in one, exists with all the attributes of God in the other, bar the identity of the Father, who remains always above Christ, who is your de facto "God."
That is rubbish...Jesus is not my defacto "God"...His father is My God, the only true God. Jesus is my brother according to him.
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
If you don't acknowledge it, you're no Christian.
God never called me or anyone to be a Christian.
 
The implications of the usage are interesting, especially when compared with that of other cultures, but you wouldn't have read that part in the beginning or the conclusion.
I'll go back and read the middle.
But if deception is measured by the precision of the language used, wouldn't something other than "it" be deceptive? That was the premise I intended to address.
I have a difficult time thinking of a personal being as an it. God is asexual. I don't think I could call him at "it" either. Do you know of another way to address a personal being who is asexual?

If we are speaking of probabilities, it is most likely that the Spirit of God is to be distinguished from God as the only other entity mentioned for God to speak with. It is preconception that denies this possibility.
Why would you distinguish God from his Spirit?
I've had no such revelation. It's still on the table for me.
I don't believe it's a salvational issue.
I agree with the line of reasoning in most of that. I disagree that what constitutes divinity can be definitively reduced to a single, known attribute like "love," and I feel speculation about what those attributes "are"/"could be" is wasted effort.
I prefer identity also...but I really, really like Boyd's emphasis on the love.
Do you think God is so unknowable that his essence is beyond our understanding?
I personally frame the question in terms of identity, because scripture supports the idea that a change in form does not change identity. Therefore, it is possible for one to have different forms "human" vs. "God" or "flesh" vs. "spirit" and still retain the recognition for things accomplished in the other form. This removes the element of speculation.
Do you believe that when you die, you, your soul/spirit, will leave your body and be present with the Lord? (2 Cor 5:6-8 KJV) Is there any change in the essence of JM when that happens? What changed when Jesus left his body for 3 days/nights?
 
Both Greenlee and Moule directly agree with me, as does Caragounis, who directly equates "o theos" with the Father. (See A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1 by Caragounis and Van Der Watt).

Observation on p.117

"Greenlee [121] expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".

Moule [122] advocated the same position: "It is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

[121] Greenlee, Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39.
[122] Moule. Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76. 115-116.

p120 (Caragounis)

The article ό, ή, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing
substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being
general to particular and from being indefinite to definite.
.
.
The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject.
.
.
Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'43. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'.

When John wrote και Θεός ην ό Λόγος, he simply meant "and God
was the Word". This, expressed according to the English idiom, becomes:
"and the Word was God", although the emphasis of the original on Θεός
is gone. This is the best we can do in English, which, as has already been
hinted at, is not an adequate translation of the original. But the reason for
this, as we have seen above, is due to the fact that the uses of the Greek
article do not coincide with those of the English article.

p.138

The three clauses are beautifully structured. In the first clause John
asserts the eternity of the Word. In the second clause he asserts the relationship
of the Word to God (= the Father) and in the third clause he
asserts the fact that the Word was God.

The Word cannot be identified with the Θεός of Jn 1,1b, because in his Gospel John
intends to distinguish Θεός (= the Father) from Λόγος (the Son)
As I’ve said, these people do not support your claim. None of them is asserting that “o theos” is an exclusive reference to “the Father.” You are misrepresenting your sources. I’ve explained this in depth to you before.
 
Do you know of another way to address a personal being who is asexual?
Not that I acknowledge. However, I don’t think there’s anything misleading in the use of masculine pronouns for God.
Why would you distinguish God from his Spirit?
Because it makes the best sense of the text of Genesis 1-3.
I don't believe it's a salvational issue.
I don’t either.
I prefer identity also...but I really, really like Boyd's emphasis on the love.
Do you think God is so unknowable that his essence is beyond our understanding?
I’d say rather that I think “God” is an inherently undefined and abstract concept, but we have definite knowledge of some of God’s attributes.
Do you believe that when you die, you, your soul/spirit, will leave your body and be present with the Lord? (2 Cor 5:6-8 KJV)
I’m not completely sure about being with “the Lord” because that’s an imprecise reference. I expect that I’ll be with Jesus and (later?) in God’s presence.
Is there any change in the essence of JM when that happens?
Sure, but I think it is independent of the form I may take.
What changed when Jesus left his body for 3 days/nights?
According to Peter, he was a spirit with no change in identity. I Pet. 3:18-20. Sorry for the brevity; I’m on my phone.
 
Because it makes the best sense of the text of Genesis 1-3.
That's debatable but I'm not interested in doing that.
I’d say rather that I think “God” is an inherently undefined and abstract concept, but we have definite knowledge of some of God’s attributes.
We are made in God's image.

How can God be a person (s) if he is "an inherently undefined and abstract concept"? Do you pray to an abstract concept? Are you a classical theist?
I’m not completely sure about being with “the Lord” because that’s an imprecise reference. I expect that I’ll be with Jesus and (later?) in God’s presence.
In the context of 2 Corinthians 5, I would say that "the Lord" is Jesus.
Sure, but I think it is independent of the form I may take.
But you, the person you are, is the same without a physical body, correct?
Do you think the thief on the cross who died alongside Jesus recognized Jesus, that is the spirit of Jesus, when they both arrived in paradise? Luke 23:42-43
According to Peter, he was a spirit with no change in identity. I Pet. 3:18-20.
I agree.
From what you've written to Cjab, do you believe that Jesus will be different after his resurrection? It seems like you make a clear distinction between Jesus in human form and his form he had prior to the incarnation and maybe even after his resurrection?
 
As I’ve said, these people do not support your claim. None of them is asserting that “o theos” is an exclusive reference to “the Father.” You are misrepresenting your sources. I’ve explained this in depth to you before.
You are flatly contradicting what they say, because they repudiate your own position, and you want the world to believe that every scholars agree with you, even though you have conceded that everything in this area is uncertain. Dream on. I couldn't credit you with being other than a fantasist.
 
Last edited:
Is it your belief that all the apostles could read Greek? Is it your belief that only those who can read can be saved?
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

You trust in your worldly wisdom more than the understanding from God...Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Who can doubt that you are an A* heresiarch?

You defame The Logos by alleging he was not God
You defame the apostle John by alleging he wasn't skilled in Greek and wrote erroneously.
You defame me as a polytheist and unbeliever for crediting "The Word was God."

And you have the gall to pretend that you are the fount of all wisdom when you're too lazy to learn Greek?

There has been a fair amount of talk in other threads of narcissists and narcissistic traits on this board. Such is your world.
 
Back
Top