What is hard about. You are forcing the context of 1 cor 15 into Jn1:14...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.
John 13:31In 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?
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?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.
John 13:31
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
cjab said:Getting fed up with this foolery. I did not insert words into any scripture.
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5,
God gives us understanding...We can bring out the scriptural meaning using English words.
Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
silly people who trust men over God...What do think commentaries are for?
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.I suppose you never read them, as none of them support your socinian position?
God did not call me to a Christian scholarship.You strike me as being someone ignorant of the vast majority of Christian scholarship.
The Jews said the same about Jesus and his disciples.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.
That is a silly question...He was antitrinity... The faith started before the trinity was a concept.Did the faith start with Fausto Sozzini?
That is a poor understanding. You must be referring to an angel directly quoting God's words.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.
Why what? Why your grammar?You just need to understand why, which is problematic for you.
To believers God is YHWH. If the Logos is not YHWH then the Logos is not God to the believerNow 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.
So why would you want to change words?That doesn't mean we all have to use identical words.
Are you upset because I quoted Paul?You're beginning to act like an RC inquistor judging those who decline to parrot some creed.
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
In the Hebrew sense, he would be Elohim.Jesus did not have sufficient attributes to be entitled to the noun sense of "God" legitimately.
Angels are Elohim/Gods...As Hebrews says, he was made a little lower than the angels. Angels are not "God."
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'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.
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 GodEnglish 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."
I don't have to read up on anything. I trust the understanding that God gives me.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).
The God of what? Thunder?Rather, ...does not make one [the God].
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.I chastize you for being indolent, and not doing sufficient research.
John 7:15You 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.
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.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).