Does God have eyes?

I don't understand your comment. You need to articule yourself better, especially when laying charges against another. Laying charges against people without proper evidence is a waste of time.
What is hard about. You are forcing the context of 1 cor 15 into Jn1:14...
In Jn 17 Jesus has not then completed his mission. His obedience wasn't complete. It was not yet "finished." Are you trying to say that the glory went to Jesus even before its completion?
John 13:31
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Hebrews 5:8-14 said the Son was made perfect through suffering. "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." He has not fulfilled his suffering when he uttered the prayers in John 17.
So you are saying that Jesus lied is that correct?
John 13:31
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Getting fed up with this foolery. I did not insert words into any scripture.
cjab said:
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5,
We can bring out the scriptural meaning using English words.
God gives us understanding...
Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
What do think commentaries are for?
silly people who trust men over God...
Romans 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
I suppose you never read them, as none of them support your socinian position?
I suppose you read them more than the scripture.
You strike me as being someone ignorant of the vast majority of Christian scholarship.
God did not call me to a Christian scholarship.
Sad that you seem to think you can set your face against most of the overwhelming majority of Christendom down the ages and be accounted orthodox.
The Jews said the same about Jesus and his disciples.
Did the faith start with Fausto Sozzini?
That is a silly question...He was antitrinity... The faith started before the trinity was a concept.
I'm not disputing it, but as it happens there is no need to reverse translate the Greek, because even angels in the OT described themselves as YHWH.
That is a poor understanding. You must be referring to an angel directly quoting God's words.
You just need to understand why, which is problematic for you.
Why what? Why your grammar?
Now this is a different argument from before, and it is no part of my argument that the "Logos is YHWH" but one with YHWH and having similar characteristics.
To believers God is YHWH. If the Logos is not YHWH then the Logos is not God to the believer
That doesn't mean we all have to use identical words.
So why would you want to change words?
You're beginning to act like an RC inquistor judging those who decline to parrot some creed.
Are you upset because I quoted Paul?
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Take it up with Paul. He is the one who wants us to say exactly what he said and mean the same thing that he meant. Why don't you tell Paul he is acting like an RC inquisitor judging those who decline to parrot some creed
Jesus did not have sufficient attributes to be entitled to the noun sense of "God" legitimately.
In the Hebrew sense, he would be Elohim.
As Hebrews says, he was made a little lower than the angels. Angels are not "God."
Angels are Elohim/Gods...
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
I'm saying you refuse to see the grammatical difference between theos with the definite article, and theos as an anarthrous-predicate contextual to Jn 1:1.
This is where it gets interesting...So in one case, Theos is God and in the other case, Theos is not God. But you chastise me when I say the word is not God.
English translations are not going to tell you what's going on with the Greek grammar in Jn 1:1. Actually the NET bible does attempt to state the distinction, but not well in its "fully God."
Without that, I have understood that the word is not God. You are going in circles to tell me what I already know. Here is how you are putting it to me... The Word is not God but I am wrong to say the Word is not God
You'll need to read up about it yourself. If you can't be bothered I can't help you (Try Caragounis on John 1:1).
I don't have to read up on anything. I trust the understanding that God gives me.
Rather, ...does not make one [the God].
The God of what? Thunder?
I chastize you for being indolent, and not doing sufficient research.
research what? I have faith that God has given me the understanding. You have whittled down to what I have been telling you from the get-go. The word is not God.
You speak from a position of ignorance in that you've entered into a scholastic debate, and you won't even read what the scholars say.
That's hypocritical. Why not just say "I am out of my depth here?" Hiding your ignorance behind condemnation of others is also hypocritical.
John 7:15
And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
No you don't expose me, because you have no scholarship to back you up, and you can't coherently articulate yourself when it comes to fine questions on Greek grammar (in common with others on this forum).
The scriptures back me up. Your position is the blind leading the blind.
 
What is hard about. You are forcing the context of 1 cor 15 into Jn1:14...
In that case, your words are dishonest. I intended no such absurdity, as one is talking about incarnation, the other about resurrection.

John 13:31
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

So you are saying that Jesus lied is that correct?
John 13:31
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Jesus was predicting his death and resurrection and prophesying that upon his death he would be taken into glory.

Note the whole of John 13:31-35:

32. "If God is glorified in him,[a] God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."

33 “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

The context is Jesus anticipating his departure from the world, and glorification. Note the future tense in v.32 indicated by "will".

cjab said:
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5,

God gives us understanding...
Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

silly people who trust men over God...
Romans 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I suppose you read them more than the scripture.
Your have an inflated opinion of yourself.

God did not call me to a Christian scholarship.
Evidently

The Jews said the same about Jesus and his disciples.

That is a silly question...He was antitrinity... The faith started before the trinity was a concept.
I'm not advancing the "Trinity" which lends itself to a very specific way of talking about [THE GOD] (titular God) that I do not embrace.

That is a poor understanding. You must be referring to an angel directly quoting God's words.
See the story of the burning bush, and how the narrative starts with an angel who later declares himself to be God. How do you account for it? This seems to be outside of your theological conception.

Exodus 3:1 "Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God."
2. "There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.
3. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
4. When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”
5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Why what? Why your grammar?
It's not only grammar. You have to understand agency, and delegated agency, and how the Logos, and angels, can be delegated with supreme rule, or with specfic tasks by God the Father.

I seem to recall you treating the whole concept of agency in scripture with sneering contempt on a previous occasion. You have some big theological hurdles to overcome. The Jews concede that angels were the agents of God for putting the law into effect: Gal 3:19. Mediators are agents of God.

There is no doubt the ruler over creation was and is the Logos united with the Father. Your problem is that like the Jews you say "No - we will not have the Logos ruling us." That's a big problemn with you. The Logos is and will be your judge. You don't think the Logos has God-like properties? You are very wrong. Indeed it's the difference between being a Christian and being a deist or muslim etc.

To believers God is YHWH. If the Logos is not YHWH then the Logos is not God to the believer
What if the Logos rules creation?

So why would you want to change words?

Are you upset because I quoted Paul?
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Take it up with Paul. He is the one who wants us to say exactly what he said and mean the same thing that he meant. Why don't you tell Paul he is acting like an RC inquisitor judging those who decline to parrot some creed
Pau is not telling us to be parrots, and in any case, as I wrote in English, you are alleging that I parrot bible translations that themselves differ as between each other. He telling us to speak in the one spirit.

In any case you are the supreme hypocrite here for denying "The Word was God."

In the Hebrew sense, he would be Elohim.

Angels are Elohim/Gods...
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

This is where it gets interesting...So in one case, Theos is God and in the other case, Theos is not God. But you chastise me when I say the word is not God.
I have already told you that if you'd said "Theos is not "the God"" in Jn 1:1c, I would credit it. The title of the Logos is not "the God."

Without that, I have understood that the word is not God. You are going in circles to tell me what I already know. Here is how you are putting it to me... The Word is not God but I am wrong to say the Word is not God
I have never put it this way to you. See above. Yet we are going round in circles, for sure, since you refuse to accept the distinctions in grammar I have articulated. You are incapable of understanding what I say, so may be it's time to wrap up.

I don't have to read up on anything. I trust the understanding that God gives me.
That's "obviously" the wrong approach / attitude to take.

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;"

The God of what? Thunder?

research what? I have faith that God has given me the understanding. You have whittled down to what I have been telling you from the get-go. The word is not God.

John 7:15
And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

The scriptures back me up. Your position is the blind leading the blind.
You are the one who has set himself up as a God-appointed authority, without the least knowledge of Greek, and replete with sundry theological lacunae. You are in dangerous position, for I am certain that God has not appointed you to be any such authority or judge over English translations of the bible, as you pretend. If fact I see you as blind and stubbornly attached to certain positions which your very limited theological education does not allow you to see past. Evidently you belong to some cult with very circumscribed views.
 
Last edited:
In that case, your words are dishonest. I intended no such absurdity, as one is talking about incarnation, the other about resurrection.
More of your rubbish, there is no mention of incarnation in the scripture.
Jesus was predicting his death and resurrection and prophesying that upon his death he would be taken into glory.

Note the whole of John 13:31-35:

32. "If God is glorified in him,[a] God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."

33 “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

The context is Jesus anticipating his departure from the world, and glorification. Note the future tense in v.32 indicated by "will".
31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Your have an inflated opinion of yourself.
That is your opinion...Many on this forum have the same opinion of you.
Evidently
So why try to force me into one?
I'm not advancing the "Trinity" which lends itself to a very specific way of talking about [THE GOD] (titular God) that I do not embrace.
But you do have more than one God.
See the story of the burning bush, and how the narrative starts with an angel who later declares himself to be God. How do you account for it? This seems to be outside of your theological conception.

Exodus 3:1 "Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God."
2. "There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.
3. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
4. When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”
5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Your understanding is flawed...The angel did not declare himself as God. God is speaking through the medium/messenger/ bush. God is saying I am the God of.... The bush is not saying I am the God of....
It's not only grammar. You have to understand agency, and delegated agency, and how the Logos, and angels, can be delegated with supreme rule, or with specfic tasks by God the Father.
That does not help your argument since you are assuming that the angel describes himself as God. Is the prophet Isaiah he is God here? ...
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

I seem to recall you treating the whole concept of agency in scripture with sneering contempt on a previous occasion. You have some big theological hurdles to overcome. The Jews concede that angels were the agents of God for putting the law into effect: Gal 3:19. Mediators are agents of God.
You conceded that the Logos is Jesus. Jesus is the mediator between God and men therefore Jesus is an agent of God.
There is no doubt the ruler over creation was and is the Logos united with the Father.
KJV
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

TLB
For the rule and authority over all things has been given to Christ by his Father; except, of course, Christ does not rule over the Father himself, who gave him this power to rule.
Your problem is that like the Jews you say "No - we will not have the Logos ruling us." That's a big problemn with you.
No, it is not...God giving the Logos to rule does not make the Logos God.
John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
The Logos is and will be your judge.
That is not in dispute
You don't think the Logos has God-like properties?
All men have. we are made in the image of God are we not? But that does not make us God.
You are very wrong. Indeed it's the difference between being a Christian and being a deist or muslim etc.
There is no difference between being a Christian and being a deist or muslim etc. God never called anyone to be one of them.
What if the Logos rules creation?
God still rules over him.
Pau is not telling us to be parrots, and in any case, as I wrote in English, you are alleging that I parrot bible translations that themselves differ as between each other. He telling us to speak in the one spirit.
That is being dogmatic. Paul knows that his epistles would be translated that is why he also said... and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
In any case you are the supreme hypocrite here for denying "The Word was God."
even more dogmatic. "but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." It follows that Paul and John are perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

You would agree that Jesus Christ is the Word and he is with God at this moment. Are these passages saying that Jesus has a God? Yes or No?
I have already told you that if you'd said "Theos is not "the God"" in Jn 1:1c, I would credit it.
Theos is not the God of what?
The title of the Logos is not "the God."
The Logos is already a title. We have been through this. Logos is a title for Jesus before he was made flesh. It is in your bible.
I have never put it this way to you. See above. Yet we are going round in circles, for sure, since you refuse to accept the distinctions in grammar I have articulated. You are incapable of understanding what I say, so may be it's time to wrap up.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. The logos is not God but the logos is God. That is exactly what the lay person sees.
That's "obviously" the wrong approach / attitude to take.

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;"
How so, when you post a verse that supports my position? I trust in the Lord with all my heart while you trust in your own understanding and grammar.
You are the one who has set himself up as a God-appointed authority, without the least knowledge of Greek, and replete with sundry theological lacunae.
Sorry, I never made such a claim. You claim to be a Greek authority.
You are in dangerous position, for I am certain that God has not appointed you to be any such authority or judge over English translations of the bible, as you pretend.
I never made the claim. You claim to be a greek authority of sorts. My only claim is the understanding that God gives.
If fact I see you as blind and stubbornly attached to certain positions which your very limited theological education does not allow you to see past.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Hebrews 10:23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Evidently you belong to some cult with very circumscribed views.
I belong to Christ. Who do you belong to? Greek club?
 
You are angry because there is no mention of incarnation in the scripture? But you claim that Jesus was speaking about incarnation... Was Jesus a Hindu?
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me." Heb 10:5

If you don't understand incarnation means entering into a body, you are dumb.

incarnate: Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin incarnat-made flesh’, from the verb incarnare, from in- ‘into’ + caro, carn- ‘flesh’.

KJV: "And the Word was made flesh,"
 
This does not help your position.
Who prepared a body for whom? That is a reference to Ps 40. God does not desire sacrifice and offering he requires a body.
God prepared a body for the Word / Jesus our example. We must prepare our bodies for God to use.
Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
If you don't understand incarnation means entering into a body, you are dumb.
If that is what you believe then you believe God himself became flesh as his son Jesus.

Incarnation
a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.
"Rama was Vishnu's incarnation on earth"
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

According to you Rev 3:20 is incarnation...
incarnate: Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin incarnat-made flesh’, from the verb incarnare, from in- ‘into’ + caro, carn- ‘flesh’.

KJV: "And the Word was made flesh,"
Then everyone is incarnated...Sperm and egg combine to be made flesh. You just keep coming up with sillier comments.
 
This does not help your position.

Then everyone is incarnated...Sperm and egg combine to be made flesh. You just keep coming up with sillier comments.
You are an apostate from the faith. That much is irrefutable. You disclose all the arrogance of those deniers of Christ epitomized by Jude, whom "....reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings...these people are grumblers and faultfinders...who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit...who deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

For one thing is clear: it is that no mere dead man whose origin is of the earth can be called "Lord." It is you who disparage Christ by contrasting him with a pagan deity, which are men elevated into gods by human beings. For you Christ is no more that a pagan deity.

You talk about "my position" but "my position" is that of the apostles and their successors from the beginning.

You deny that "The Logos became flesh" (Jn 1:14). Such is the foundation of Christianity. In this you deny the Logos itself, and as you aver, "The Logos was not God."
 
Last edited:
You are an apostate from the faith.
That is your opinion
That much is irrefutable.
again your opinion
You disclose all the arrogance of those deniers of Christ epitomized by Jude, whom "....reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings...these people are grumblers and faultfinders...who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit...who deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."
You deny God made Christ Lord.
Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
For one thing is clear: it is that no mere dead man whose origin is of the earth can be called "Lord." It is you who disparage Christ by contrasting him with a pagan deity, which are men elevated into gods by human beings. For you Christ is no more that a pagan deity.
I never said that or implied it. So you are speaking based on your misunderstanding. Jesus Christ died in order to be resurrected. God cannot die. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.
You talk about "my position" but "my position" is that of the apostles and their successors from the beginning.
No, it is not. The apostles and all believers know that Jesus Christ has a God who he ascended to.
You deny that "The Logos became flesh" (Jn 1:14).
No, I did not.
Such is the foundation of Christianity. In this you deny the Logos itself, and as you aver, "The Logos was not God."
If you claim the Logos was God and the Father is God how many Gods do you have?
 
No, I did not.
You certainly did: you said "there is no mention of incarnation in the scripture" which is an unequivocal repudiation of Jn 1:14.
If you claim the Logos was God and the Father is God how many Gods do you have?
It all depend on what is implied by the usage of "God" as predicate, which as I have said previously is inherently ambiguous in English. But the two statements above are consistent with one God distinct from the Trinitarian/ Sabellian/modalistic sense.

The reason you won't learn Greek is because if you did, it would put an end to you spouting such drivel. In Greek the Logos is "God" where the condition in Jn 1:1b applies, the nature of the fulfillment of which is debatable (i.e. as to whether it applies to both heaven and earth or just to heaven), but what isn't is that Father is "the God" unconditionally, as I have said so many times in this thread. When are you going to take any notice of what the Greek says, and desist from relying on ambiguous English usage that finds no such ambiguity in the Greek (due to difference in article usage). And you are so ignorant as to cast doubt on the very idea of divine agency, even though it is clearly made out. So what hope is there?

What do you understand by monogenes?

All you ever do is play with English words to deny scripture. That's what cults do. It's a conjuring trick but you don't fool me.
 
Last edited:
The reason you won't learn Greek is because if you did, it would put an end to you spouting such drivel. In Greek the Logos is "God" where the condition in Jn 1:1b applies, the nature of the fulfillment of which is debatable (i.e. as to whether it applies to both heaven and earth or just to heaven), but what isn't is that Father is "the God" unconditionally, as I have said so many times in this thread. When are you going to take any notice of what the Greek says, and desist from relying on ambiguous English usage that finds no such ambiguity in the Greek (due to difference in article usage). And you are so ignorant as to cast doubt on the very idea of divine agency, even though it is clearly made out. So what hope is there?
You don't know Greek, and you are spouting drivel. At least he isn't claiming to know something he doesn't know or to have scholarly support for his position where he has none. "The God" can be used of any "god" and the meaning of the utterance is contextual. That is the only correct understanding of the phrase as I have said constantly throughout this thread. Anything else is an attempt to rule out legitimate grammatical possibilities on the meaning of contested passages such as II Pet. 1:2 or Titus 2:13.

At least you have conceded this part and are no longer interpreting the beginning/end of the book by the middle: "(i.e. as to whether it [God] applies to both heaven and earth or just to heaven)". Or is this another instance where you say something correct and then go back on it?
 
You don't know Greek, and you are spouting drivel. At least he isn't claiming to know something he doesn't know or to have scholarly support for his position where he has none. "The God" can be used of any "god" and the meaning of the utterance is contextual. That is the only correct understanding of the phrase as I have said constantly throughout this thread. Anything else is an attempt to rule out legitimate grammatical possibilities on the meaning of contested passages such as II Pet. 1:2 or Titus 2:13.
You don't know Greek and you are spouting drivel. Jn 1:1b is not referring to "any god." Indeed your position is one of inveterate heathenism: you pretend that the New Testament is riddled with potential references to heathen gods. Such may have been the Old Testament position, but the NT is very different, as is also the LXX a long way to categorizing ὁ θεὸς as YHWH in its context.

ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς (Gen 46:3) is who "ὁ θεὸς" is, and there is none other. And it isn't Jesus (Matt 22:32), for he said "have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?" and not "have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by me?"

At least you have conceded this part and are no longer interpreting the beginning/end of the book by the middle: "(i.e. as to whether it [God] applies to both heaven and earth or just to heaven)". Or is this another instance where you say something correct and then go back on it?
I do not find this to be coherent and I don't wish to debate with you.
 
Last edited:
You don't know Greek and you are spouting drivel.
I wouldn't expect you to tell the truth. You won't even admit that you don't know Greek yourself! Since you are already lying about that, how would it help you to admit that you are being corrected by someone who can actually read the language?
Jn 1:1b is not referring to "any god."
So? I never said it did, but its meaning is contextual as well.
Indeed your position is one of heathenism.
The position you quoted from me has nothing to do with "heathenism". Are you confused or off-topic?
I do not find this to be coherent
What I wrote was clear. The incoherence you speak of is either a willfully false statement or the result of your personal shortcomings.
and I don't wish to debate with you.
There is no debate. You are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you acknowledge it or not.
 
I wouldn't expect you to tell the truth. You won't even admit that you don't know Greek yourself! Since you are already lying about that, how would it help you to admit that you are being corrected by someone who can actually read the language?
How can I be accused of lying when I never made the assertion you accuse me of. You're out of control, but you won't admit it. Your mind seeths with malice towards me.

So? I never said it did, but its meaning is contextual as well
The position you quoted from me has nothing to do with "heathenism". Are you confused or off-topic?
You said "The God" can be used of any "god". To use it so would amount to blasphemy. I don't know one instance in the NT where an unqualified "o theos" is used of someone other than the Father. (BTW, the context of Jn 1:1 entails an unqualified usage of "o theos" and Jn 1:1 is the only topic currently under discussion.)

What I wrote was clear. The incoherence you speak of is either a willfully false statement or the result of your personal shortcomings.

There is no debate. You are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you acknowledge it or not.
You may know what you're talking about, but you have some communication issues.
 
How can I be accused of lying when I never made the assertion you accuse me of. You're out of control, but you won't admit it. Your mind seeths with malice towards me.
You just said I couldn't read Greek. That's what I quoted from you, and that's what I was responding to at that moment. That is a lie. Besides this, you've repeatedly implied to Newbirth that you can read Greek, and you've offered no correction when he's erroneously attributed that ability to you. You clearly intend to give the impression that your abilities are greater than what they are. You can't even understand what the scholars you quote are saying about Greek grammar because your knowledge of the language is so poor.
You said "The God" can be used of any "god". To use it so would amount to blasphemy.
It wouldn't be if one were speaking of Jesus. That's what happens in John 20:28. Your assertion about "unqualified" usage has no basis in reality. If "o theos" could only be used for "the Father" it would follow that "o theos" could not be modified to refer to anyone else because another in that category could not exist. It would also be true that other forms of the phrase, like "ton theon" for example, couldn't be used to refer to another god. However, we see this phrase appear unqualified in some places. Just because a phrase only appears in a certain way in a limited corpus it does not follow that it can only be used in that manner. That is a logical fallacy.
I don't know one instance in the NT where an unqualified "o theos" is used of someone other than the Father. (BTW, the context of Jn 1:1 entails an unqualified usage of "o theos" and Jn 1:1 is the only topic currently under discussion.)
It doesn't matter. This isn't evidence. It is a conclusion drawn from a logical fallacy as mentioned above. Your logic on this matter is deficient as is your knowledge of language and language use in general.
You may know what you're talking about,
You first say I don't know Greek, and now you're suddenly agnostic?
but you have some communication issues.
Everyone does. But any that I might have made today don't even register against the comprehension issues you have had in these last few exchanges.
 
You certainly did: you said "there is no mention of incarnation in the scripture" which is an unequivocal repudiation of Jn 1:14.
Where does the scripture say Jesus was incarnated?
It all depend on what is implied by the usage of "God" as predicate, which as I have said previously is inherently ambiguous in English. But the two statements above are consistent with one God distinct from the Trinitarian/ Sabellian/modalistic sense.
Why are you babbling?
The reason you won't learn Greek is because if you did, it would put an end to you spouting such drivel.
You have learned Greek and you spout more drivel than anyone on CARM.
In Greek the Logos is "God" where the condition in Jn 1:1b applies, the nature of the fulfillment of which is debatable (i.e. as to whether it applies to both heaven and earth or just to heaven), but what isn't is that Father is "the God" unconditionally, as I have said so many times in this thread. When are you going to take any notice of what the Greek says, and desist from relying on ambiguous English usage that finds no such ambiguity in the Greek (due to difference in article usage). And you are so ignorant as to cast doubt on the very idea of divine agency, even though it is clearly made out. So what hope is there?
Because the greek has many Gods..
What do you understand by monogenes?
I understand it to mean Jesus is not God. Since you agree the Logos is Jesus... It follows that the Logos cannot be God. I would ask you again, how many Gods do you have?
All you ever do is play with English words to deny scripture. That's what cults do. It's a conjuring trick but you don't fool me.
why are you bickering? You keep on spewing nonsense then accuse me of playing with words. In some places, you say Jesus is the Logos, then you say Jesus is not God, but you say the Logos is God.
 
Where does the scripture say Jesus was incarnated?
In Jn 1:14.

ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο "The Logos became flesh" = incarnation of the Logos as Jesus.

γίνομαι = to come into being, to become, to happen.

Note what it says about the Logos in John 1:3 (Greek word order preserved): "All things through him came into being and without him came into being not even one [thing] that has come into being."

Why are you babbling?

You have learned Greek and you spout more drivel than anyone on CARM.

Because the greek has many Gods..
The biblical Greek only has one God, the Father. The NT wasn't written for heathens, as JM imagines. Everyone including Christ himself knew who God was in the days of the apostles, as the apostles had a uniform teaching derived from Christ. Yet they also knew who Christ was too, the man who came down from heaven.

I understand it to mean Jesus is not God.
You're keen on negatives. Don't you have anything positive to say?

Since you agree the Logos is Jesus... It follows that the Logos cannot be God. I would ask you again, how many Gods do you have?why are you bickering? You keep on spewing nonsense then accuse me of playing with words. In some places, you say Jesus is the Logos, then you say Jesus is not God, but you say the Logos is God.
Jesus the man was sent from God and lived on earth before his resurrection, whilst the Logos is a title for what existed and exists in heaven "with God" (as you have heard me say before.)

Enough of this. You deny the incarnation and I'm not even clear why you're here.
 
The biblical Greek only has one God, the Father.
That's demonstrably untrue. Jesus/the Word is also called "God," and other things are referred to as "god". The meaning of the word is determined by context. The authors of the Bible may have believed in a single God or a single, unified God consisting of many individuals. They could even talk/write about "a god" or even "the god" that they didn't believe in if they so chose. There is nothing special about "o theos" that makes it refer exclusively to "the Father," regardless of what the speakers/writers believed. You can pretend that your assumptions are valid if you wish; but your assumptions are incorrect and your reasoning is circular.
The NT wasn't written for heathens, as JM imagines.
This is more evidence you don't know what you are talking about: John 20:31"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." This sounds very much like an evangelistic overture to the "heathens". I don't know why you would imagine that the NT wasn't written for all people.
 
That's demonstrably untrue. Jesus/the Word is also called "God,"
This discloses your incompetence in Greek. Jesus/The Word is never named or entitled "God" in the o theos/YHWH sense (where "named"/"entitled" corresponds to your usage of "called").

There is the legacy translation of an Elohim prophecy using 'o' as a vocative, but the context is a man being entitled "God" which is contextualized in John 10:34-36.

and other things are referred to as "god".
Obviously as theos is a noun, anything can be referred to as a "god/gods" if properly qualfied to alienate the meaning away from the title of the Father.

The meaning of the word is determined by context. The authors of the Bible may have believed in a single God or a single, unified God consisting of many individuals.
This shows your ignorance and determination to repudiate the bible. "There is one God, the Father ....", "Father....you the true God...."etc,

They could even talk/write about "a god" or even "the god" that they didn't believe in if they so chose. There is nothing special about "o theos" that makes it refer exclusively to "the Father," regardless of what the speakers/writers believed. You can pretend that your assumptions are valid if you wish; but your assumptions are incorrect and your reasoning is circular.
See my comments about qualfication above, and stop confounding qualified and unqualfied o theos.

This is more evidence you don't know what you are talking about: John 20:31"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." This sounds very much like an evangelistic overture to the "heathens". I don't know why you would imagine that the NT wasn't written for all people.
My point was that the gospel was written for those wanting to learn about God and Jesus, and was not written for those chasing after pagan gods. So the very word "God" bears a meaning contextual to the purpose of the book.
 
Last edited:
This discloses your incompetence in Greek. Jesus/The Word is never named or entitled "God" in the o theos/YHWH sense (where "named"/"entitled" corresponds to your usage of "called").
What it discloses is your sleazy manner of discussion. I do not conflate "named"/"entitled" with "called" as you asserted here, nor did I claim that Jesus is called "YHWH" because "o theos" and "YHWH" are not always equivalent. You are arguing with a position that you have created.
There is the legacy translation of an Elohim prophecy using 'o' as a vocative, but the context is a man being entitled "God" which is contextualized in John 10:34-36.
According to your position, this should not be able to occur if "o theos" were an exclusive reference to God.
Obviously as theos is a noun, anything can be referred to as a "god/gods" if properly qualfied to alienate the meaning away from the title of the Father.
Then you admit your position is bogus. All of these determinations have to be made on the basis of context not on the basis of your fabricated "grammatical" rule, which is anything but. Context makes the determination, not the use or disuse of the article, with or without any additional modifiers.
This shows your ignorance and determination to repudiate the bible. "There is one God, the Father ....", "Father....you the true God...."etc,
No. It shows that I acknowledge the difficulty that exists when trying to reconcile what the Bible says on this topic. I don't ignore or reinterpret one side of a seemingly incongruent testimony to reconcile it with the other as you do. Your understanding is based in part on your limited knowledge of the nature of God and in the main on your worldview. It is your deficient world view that forbids other understandings of the text, and not the information within the text.
See my comments about qualfication above, and stop confounding qualified and unqualfied o theos.
When someone puts something in quotes, it is generally understood (except by you who would have to be among the world's worst lawyers if your claims in this thread are accurate) that they are giving what they intend. I believe I explained this to you somewhere before already. Either way, as I know I've said above, your position is bogus whether "o theos" is qualified or not.
My point was that the gospel was written for those wanting to learn about God and Jesus, and was not written for those chasing after pagan gods.
You know full well that you were attempting to slander me with a ridiculous strawman, but you couldn't even manage that because of your overwhelming incompetence.
So the very word "God" bears a meaning contextual to the purpose of the book.
Except in those instances where they weren't talking about the true God. There is no default meaning of the word as you imagine.
 
Back
Top