Does God have eyes?

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.
You're the sleaze merchant.

You know perfectly well that to be "called God" connotes the name or title of "God" which is not given to Jesus or the Word.

The title of Jesus is the "Son of [the living] God" - 48 references in the NT alone - as against 0 for "God". You really should fact check your remarks. Also the resurrected Christ is called "The Logos of God."

According to your position, this should not be able to occur if "o theos" were an exclusive reference to God.

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.
The statistics speak for themselves. Unqualified "O Theos" is not the title of the Logos or Jesus, Mr. Sabellian.

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.
The only difficulties are for those who cannot see. The NT is very consistent provided you grasp it correctly. Jesus refers to o theos as his Father and our Father. End of.

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.
I couldn't care about your allegations, as your own position is incoherent. When you have a coherent position, get back to me.

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.

Except in those instances where they weren't talking about the true God. There is no default meaning of the word as you imagine.
 
You're the sleaze merchant.

You know perfectly well that to be "called God" connotes the name or title of "God" which is not given to Jesus or the Word.
"The word was with God and the word was God." That's what John says. He says that about the word in John 1:1, and he, quoting Thomas, calls Jesus "God" again in John 20:28. John calls Jesus "God". That you say otherwise shows how willfully ignorant that you are. That you keep claiming that "called God" is the same as saying "God" is a name or title after you have been corrected shows that your literacy is low. I'll make it easier for you. If I say, "My dog". I'm not claiming that "dog" is the name of my pet, nor am I claiming that "dog" is his title. I simply called the animal a "dog". Do you understand yet?
The title of Jesus is the "Son of [the living] God" - 48 references in the NT alone - as against 0 for "God". You really should fact check your remarks. Also the resurrected Christ is called "The Logos of God."
Once again, your utter simplicity is showing. Besides your erroneous statement "0 for 'God'", you also seem to hold the mistaken idea that titles are exclusive propositions. He's also called "teacher" and "Lord" and, perhaps, "only begotten God"; the numbers used for each don't prove anything. I don't know why you refuse to admit the fact that Jesus is called "God".
The statistics speak for themselves. Unqualified "O Theos" is not the title of the Logos or Jesus, Mr. Sabellian.
Once again, Mr. Unable-to-read-what-was-just-written, I never claimed that it "o theos" was a title.
The only difficulties are for those who cannot see. The NT is very consistent provided you grasp it correctly.
You clearly wouldn't know. You deny the things in scripture that are indisputable. How could you be trusted on matters that are debated?
Jesus refers to o theos as his Father and our Father. End of.
Another brilliant display of your simplistic logic. Your conflation of "o theos" with "the Father" leads you to assume that Jesus's referring to God as "the Father" means that he himself cannot also be "God" as scripture affirms.
I couldn't care about your allegations, as your own position is incoherent. When you have a coherent position, get back to me.
My position is coherent, but you have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to understand what I've said. As I've stated many times, any problems you are having are due to your own shortcomings.
 
In Jn 1:14.

ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο "The Logos became flesh" = incarnation of the Logos as Jesus.
A sperm (not flesh) meets an egg (not flesh) and becomes flesh. Jesus was flesh. A man. So unless you are saying that Jesus was not a man your argument is null.
γίνομαι = to come into being, to become, to happen.
Babies come into being. If jesus was incarnated then all men are incarnated.
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."
Yes, God his father made all things through him.
John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

The biblical Greek only has one God, the Father.
Yet you chastise me when I say the Logos is not God.
The NT wasn't written for heathens, as JM imagines.
So why is it preached to the heathens?
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.
How does John describe him?
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;
You're keen on negatives. Don't you have anything positive to say?
Jesus is the son of 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.)
Therefore Jesus is what existed made flesh. A title was not made flesh. Jesus was not a title.
Enough of this. You deny the incarnation and I'm not even clear why you're here.
Hindus believe in incarnation. You must be a Hindu.
 
The title of Jesus is the "Son of [the living] God" - 48 references in the NT alone - as against 0 for "God". You really should fact check your remarks. Also the resurrected Christ is called "The Logos of God."
Is it not the same Jesus who died that was resurrected? You seem to be implying that the resurrected Jesus is a different Jesus from the Jesus who died.
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
 
Is it not the same Jesus who died that was resurrected? You seem to be implying that the resurrected Jesus is a different Jesus from the Jesus who died.
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Sorry, meant "ascended Jesus."
 
A sperm (not flesh) meets an egg (not flesh) and becomes flesh. Jesus was flesh. A man. So unless you are saying that Jesus was not a man your argument is null.
Your argument is null, because you are seeking to dictate what scripture might have said but doesn't say. And you can't account for Jn 1:14,as it stands, any more that for Jn 1:1c.

You have a different gospel, a heretical gospel written by your unitarian cult, which in many ways is comparable with Islam (another unitarian cult. And let me say to you, that as far as strength of faith is concerned, unitarians are on very dodgy ground. How can one believe in a mere man? (Comparable with those who believe in Mohamet). It's not going to get you anywhere believing that there was a man called Jesus.

Babies come into being. If jesus was incarnated then all men are incarnated.

Yes, God his father made all things through him.
John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Yet you chastise me when I say the Logos is not God.
Because in Jn 1:1c, "God" is used in a noun-only sense to define the Logos's ascendant position over all of creation. Whereas the title "God" is attributed to the Father alone.

So why is it preached to the heathens?
"Jesus" is first preached to the heathens. 'Heathens' only come to the NT to discover the real Jesus after being converted, unless you're someone who reads the bible without having been converted, which I think are a small minority, because, like you, they find it impossible to understand.

How does John describe him?
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;

Jesus is the son of God
What I meant was, why is Jesus said to be the "monogenes" when all other sons aren't?

Therefore Jesus is what existed made flesh. A title was not made flesh. Jesus was not a title
Every man is "made" in /as flesh, but no-one else in the bible is described in the terms in which Jesus is described ("became flesh").

You are correct that "a title" wasn't made flesh, but the spiritual being to whom the title applies to was. And you know "the Logos" is a title of a spiritual being from Jn 1:1 and 1 John 1:1.

Hindus believe in incarnation. You must be a Hindu.
Incarnation simply means "made flesh" which is an exact reflection of Jn 1:14. It seems you quite like mocking the bible. Until you stop, you won't ever believe it.

Another thing is that your position is incoherent from every angle: if Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God", why are you so adamant that the one sitting at the right hand of God could not have been "masde flesh?" Why is only one transformation possible, and not the other?
 
Your argument is null, because you are seeking to dictate what scripture might have said but doesn't say.
Actually, you are the one doing that... Believers have only one God...you have more than one
And you can't account for Jn 1:14,as it stands, any more that for Jn 1:1c.
I already did. You are not reading my posts
You have a different gospel, a heretical gospel written by your unitarian cult, which in many ways is comparable with Islam (another unitarian cult.
We are reading the same bible are we not? It says Jesus was a man.
Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
And let me say to you, that as far as strength of faith is concerned, unitarians are on very dodgy ground.
You are the one on dodgy ground. You think that Jesus was not a man.
How can one believe in a mere man? (Comparable with those who believe in Mohamet).
Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
It's not going to get you anywhere believing that there was a man called Jesus.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Because in Jn 1:1c, "God" is used in a noun-only sense to define the Logos's ascendant position over all of creation. Whereas the title "God" is attributed to the Father alone.
God is a title in every case...You are in denial. Titles are nouns.
"Jesus" is first preached to the heathens. 'Heathens' only come to the NT to discover the real Jesus after being converted, unless you're someone who reads the bible without having been converted, which I think are a small minority, because, like you, they find it impossible to understand.
So is there another Jesus apart from the one in the NT?
What I meant was, why is Jesus said to be the "monogenes" when all other sons aren't?
Jesus came out from God all other sons are born by faith.
Every man is "made" in /as flesh, but no-one else in the bible is described in the terms in which Jesus is described ("became flesh").
I just explained all men became flesh from a sperm and an egg.
You are correct that "a title" wasn't made flesh, but the spiritual being to whom the title applies to was.
And we call that spiritual being Jesus. You might ask why, it is because the spiritual being became flesh...When he became flesh he said he was with the father.
And you know "the Logos" is a title of a spiritual being from Jn 1:1 and 1 John 1:1.
Yes and the spiritual being became flesh=Jesus
Incarnation simply means "made flesh" which is an exact reflection of Jn 1:14.
And you said every man is "made" in /as flesh, therefore everyman is incarnated...
It seems you quite like mocking the bible. Until you stop, you won't ever believe it.
how so? I am posting the scriptures that destroy your nonsense.
Another thing is that your position is incoherent from every angle: if Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God", why are you so adamant that the one sitting at the right hand of God could not have been "masde flesh?"
Where did I say that? You seem very confused...Please point to the post where I said that.
Why is only one transformation possible, and not the other?
What are you talking about...Jesus came through the birth canal as a man, and he ascended as a man.
 
Actually, you are the one doing that... Believers have only one God...you have more than one
But you are limiting God, as if God were a human being, engaging in absurd anthropomorphism, and nullifying the Logos as any part of God, whereas Christ said "I came from God." Even kings have regents, so where it might seem as if there are two kings, in fact there is only one.

Everything you say is just a nullification of scripture. That you see yourself as a believer in Christ is what I can't understand. Believing there existed a man named Jesus is irrelevant. Even the muslims and the Jews believe that.

I already did. You are not reading my posts
You can't account for the Logos, except as a title for Jesus. Why would he need such a title in addition to his name? Why is he not called "the Logos" during his life time he in fact he really did bear such a title? It is fatuous to say "<the title> was made flesh."

We are reading the same bible are we not? It says Jesus was a man.
Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
No one is doubting Jesus was a man.


You are the one on dodgy ground. You think that Jesus was not a man.
You err.

Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

God is a title in every case...You are in denial. Titles are nouns.
Plainly this is not true (see John 10:34-36, John 20:28, and John 1:1c for starters).

So is there another Jesus apart from the one in the NT?

Jesus came out from God all other sons are born by faith.
Did Jesus exist as an independent thought/conscience centre before he was born, or was his birth from God like the result of a unitary human cell splitting to create two cells?

I just explained all men became flesh from a sperm and an egg.

And we call that spiritual being Jesus. You might ask why, it is because the spiritual being became flesh...When he became flesh he said he was with the father.
No: he said he was sent by the Father. John 8:42

Yes and the spiritual being became flesh=Jesus
Who and what was this "spiritual being?"

And you said every man is "made" in /as flesh, therefore everyman is incarnated...

how so? I am posting the scriptures that destroy your nonsense.
You are an expert shape shifter, pretending to this and that, changing you mind on the hoof, with no fixed view on anything, speaking in riddles, contradicting yourself endlessly, and ultimately denying the incarnation, which is satanic.

Where did I say that? You seem very confused...Please point to the post where I said that.
You deny the incarnation, so likely you also deny that the ascended Jesus sat down at the right hand of God.

What are you talking about...Jesus came through the birth canal as a man, and he ascended as a man.
As a man, Jesus would have been dead in minutes as he ascended through the atmosphere. Did he ascend to a spaceship, or to another planet, or where?
 
"The word was with God and the word was God." That's what John says. He says that about the word in John 1:1, and he, quoting Thomas, calls Jesus "God" again in John 20:28. John calls Jesus "God". That you say otherwise shows how willfully ignorant that you are. That you keep claiming that "called God" is the same as saying "God" is a name or title after you have been corrected shows that your literacy is low. I'll make it easier for you. If I say, "My dog". I'm not claiming that "dog" is the name of my pet, nor am I claiming that "dog" is his title. I simply called the animal a "dog". Do you understand yet?
So you are exploiting a presumed but hardly made out ambiguity inherent in the sundry definitions of the English word "call" to justify your Sabellian position. You are, in the above example, using "call" inappropriately.

For no-one would dissect your argument above as "you called your animal a dog" if in fact it was a dog. This isn't valid English usage of "call", unless either (1) there is an element of exceptionalism, i.e. if the classification was in someway anomalous, such as to entertain the characteristic of a name or moniker i.e. "He called the woman [a] dog" as Jesus did with the Canaanite woman, (2) you use "dog" as an actual moniker for your dog i.e. "Come here dog!"

But in your example, you are merely describing/classifying your animal as a dog [noun] which is an existing classification. If you were creating a new classification, of a new species, fair enough. But here you are intentionally confounding "call" with describe, categorize, classify etc.

"God" is never a moniker for the Logos or Jesus, but a description of the Logos, just as "dog" is a description of your animal, and just as "spirit" is a description for the Father in John 4:24. Jesus is once called "the God" of a particular human being, but that is a qualified sense, and was said to demonstrate faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and so does not correlate with unqualified o theos.

Once again, your utter simplicity is showing. Besides your erroneous statement "0 for 'God'", you also seem to hold the mistaken idea that titles are exclusive propositions. He's also called "teacher" and "Lord" and, perhaps, "only begotten God"; the numbers used for each don't prove anything. I don't know why you refuse to admit the fact that Jesus is called "God".
Jesus himself was a straightforward person, and is not once called "God" in an unqualified sense.

Once again, Mr. Unable-to-read-what-was-just-written, I never claimed that it "o theos" was a title.
"o theos" is a title - see Jn 1:1b - the title of the one whom the Logos (also a title) was with. And Jn 1:1b sets the precedent for everything John and Jesus say about "o theos".

You are seeking to throw scripture into confusion.

You clearly wouldn't know. You deny the things in scripture that are indisputable. How could you be trusted on matters that are debated?

Another brilliant display of your simplistic logic. Your conflation of "o theos" with "the Father" leads you to assume that Jesus's referring to God as "the Father" means that he himself cannot also be "God" as scripture affirms.
John 20:17 and 17:3 etc set the precedent from Jesus, and Jn 1:1b creates the precedent by John. You might as well call Jesus a liar, as assert there is no correlation between o theos and Father.

My position is coherent, but you have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to understand what I've said. As I've stated many times, any problems you are having are due to your own shortcomings.
The problems and the incoherence are all yours.
 
Last edited:
But here you are intentionally confounding "call" with describe, categorize, classify etc.
Which is a standard usage of the word...
2b(1): to regard or characterize as of a certain kind : CONSIDER

which is distinct from...
2a: to speak of or address by a specified name : give a name to

see
As I've said and you've just demonstrated once again, your general knowledge of language use is lacking.
"God" is never a moniker for the Logos or Jesus, but a description of the Logos, just as "dog" is a description of your animal, and just as "spirit" is a description for the Father in John 4:24.
Dog is a classification. The word is classified as "God" in John 1:1. Jesus is classified as "God" in John 20:28.
Jesus is once called "the God" of a particular human being, but that is a qualified sense, and was said to demonstrate faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and so does not correlate with unqualified o theos.
For the millionth time, there is no distinction between "qualified" and "unqualified" usage, because there is no special category for articular theos. Its meaning is contextual, and "o theos," whether qualified or not, is not always a title for the Father. If it were you would expect "ton theon" to be used in the same way. It is not. Therefore, your entire ridiculous theory is shot.
Jesus himself was a straightforward person, and is not once called "God" in an unqualified sense.
This statement is of no significance. He also didn't say he had ten toes. This is another failure of your logic.
"o theos" is a title - see Jn 1:1b - the title of the one whom the Logos (also a title) was with. And Jn 1:1b sets the precedent for everything John and Jesus say about "o theos".
It can be a title. So can "theos". There is nothing special about either of them. However, you are right that John 1:1 sets the stage for the rest of the book. He says that Jesus is "God" along with another "God". He later states that these two are one.
You are seeking to throw scripture into confusion.
No.
You might as well call Jesus a liar, as assert there is no correlation between o theos and Father.
Jesus didn't say that every usage of "o theos" is a reference to the Father. You are attributing things to Jesus that he never said, just like you've done with all your Greek sources.
The problems and the incoherence are all yours.
Nope. Keep dreaming.
 
Which is a standard usage of the word...
2b(1): to regard or characterize as of a certain kind : CONSIDER

which is distinct from...
2a: to speak of or address by a specified name : give a name to

see
As I've said and you've just demonstrated once again, your general knowledge of language use is lacking.

Dog is a classification. The word is classified as "God" in John 1:1. Jesus is classified as "God" in John 20:28.
The Word cannot be classified as "God", because "God" is not a category. If God was a category, then the Word would be "a God" i.e. a member of that category called "God", and you would be a polytheist.

Indeed the idea that there exists any "classification" for the Logos, who is sui generis, is wrong. The Word is being described in conjunction with the condition in Jn 1:1b. Jn 1:1c is the spiritual corollary of Jn 1:1b.

For the millionth time, there is no distinction between "qualified" and "unqualified" usage, because there is no special category for articular theos.
That is nonsense as theos functions as both a noun and a title in its own right, just by an assessment of its usage.

Its meaning is contextual, and "o theos," whether qualified or not, is not always a title for the Father. If it were you would expect "ton theon" to be used in the same way. It is not. Therefore, your entire ridiculous theory is shot.
Show me an unqualified usage of "o theos" that is not an allusion to the Father.

This statement is of no significance. He also didn't say he had ten toes. This is another failure of your logic.
It's not logical for men to invent names or titles for Jesus. It is God the Father who decided what to call him, and "o theos" is not one his titles.

It can be a title. So can "theos". There is nothing special about either of them. However, you are right that John 1:1 sets the stage for the rest of the book. He says that Jesus is "God" along with another "God". He later states that these two are one.
There are not two "Gods." End of. The Word is only described as God due to unity in heaven with the Father.

No.

Jesus didn't say that every usage of "o theos" is a reference to the Father. You are attributing things to Jesus that he never said, just like you've done with all your Greek sources.
So was Jesus referring to himself when he used "theos" or "o theos"? Show me where this is the case. You need to support your generalizations with specific examples. noting Ps110:1.

Nope. Keep dreaming.
 
Last edited:
The Word cannot be classified as "God", because "God" is not a category. If God was a category, then the Word would be "a God" i.e. a member of that category called "God", and you would be a polytheist.
How ridiculous. If "God" isn't a category then we couldn't refer to "God". "The Father" and "the Son" are both "God" for they are one. This is what John's gospel says.
Indeed the idea that there exists any "classification" for the Logos, who is sui generis, is wrong. The Word is being described in conjunction with the condition in Jn 1:1b. Jn 1:1c is the spiritual corollary of Jn 1:1b.
John classified the word as "God". I don't know why you won't accept this fact.
That is nonsense as theos functions as both a noun and a title in its own right, just by an assessment of its usage.
You haven't given an assessment of its usage. You have restricted yourself to a narrow corpus (leaving off the testimony of other Jewish and Christian writers) and have excluded data that doesn't fit your conclusion such as the usage of unqualified articular phrases of different declensions like "ton theon". Your whole premise is nonsense.
Show me an unqualified usage of "o theos" that is not an allusion to the Father.
This is a logical fallacy. Even if every instance of the word "theos" in the New Testament only referred to "the Father" it wouldn't prove your point. You are unable to understand this indisputable fact, apparently.
It's not logical for men to invent names or titles for Jesus. It is God the Father who decided what to call him, and "o theos" is not one his titles.
Rubbish. People have made up many titles for him, both in his own time and ours. You seem entirely oblivious to what is "logical".
There are not two "Gods." End of. The Word is only described as God due to unity in heaven with the Father.
The word is intentionally described as "God" independently of "the Father" in John 1:1. That doesn't mean that they aren't unified, but it does tell us they each have their own distinct identity. For you to speculate that this unity was somehow severed because of his incarnation (This is what you appear to suggest. Feel free to clarify the point if that's not what you mean.) goes beyond the testimony of the text. Jesus says that he and "the Father" are one even during his incarnation.
So was Jesus referring to himself when he used "theos" or "o theos"? Show me where this is the case. You need to support your generalizations with specific examples. noting Ps110:1.
How absurd! There is nothing for me to support. My statement is an indisputable fact. Jesus never said anything about what "theos" could or could not refer to. That's not a generalization. Every time I think your ignorance has peaked, you manage to reach new heights.

This is simply a different version of the same logical failing you demonstrated above. You erroneously think that nonuse of a phrase is evidence in favor of your position. It's not. You won't interact with the very simple and clarifying example that I gave. How many toes did Jesus have? The text doesn't tell us. Does this mean that you don't believe he had ten toes?

In addition to that fact, Jesus directly states in John many times that the purpose of his ministry was to glorify the Father. Logically speaking, even if he were "God" during his incarnation (allow the premise for the moment as a theoretical exercise) he couldn't glorify the Father to the fullest extent if he mentioned his own status as "God". That alone would be enough to account for what we have recorded for us (since Jesus states that he and the Father are one). You've got nothing, cjab. Absolutely nothing.
 
But you are limiting God, as if God were a human being, engaging in absurd anthropomorphism, and nullifying the Logos as any part of God, whereas Christ said "I came from God." Even kings have regents, so where it might seem as if there are two kings, in fact there is only one.
That is the silliest argument yet. First of all, I cannot limit God. Secondly, I had already put it to you that Jesus came out from God as per scripture. Thirdly A regent of a king is not the king. Therefore a regent of God is not God.
Everything you say is just a nullification of scripture.
that is your opinion
That you see yourself as a believer in Christ is what I can't understand.
because you lack understanding.
Believing there existed a man named Jesus is irrelevant.
It is most relevant, Because if the man named Jesus was resurrected to eternal life then I can also be resurrected to eternal life also.
Even the muslims and the Jews believe that.
No, they don't, if they did they would follow him.
You can't account for the Logos, except as a title for Jesus.
But you also agree the Logos is only the title of Jesus prior to becoming flesh.
Why would he need such a title in addition to his name?
Titles reflect position...Logos would reflect spokes person
Why is he not called "the Logos" during his life time he in fact he really did bear such a title?
He spoke the words of God...He does that the title reflect.
It is fatuous to say "<the title> was made flesh."
Because he is not a title...he is the spokesperson of God
No one is doubting Jesus was a man.
So why are you chastising me for saying he is a man?
So why do you chastise me for saying Jesus is a man?
Plainly this is not true (see John 10:34-36, John 20:28, and John 1:1c for starters).
please point out what is not true in the passage I posted.
Did Jesus exist as an independent thought/conscience centre before he was born,
What does Jesus say?
or was his birth from God like the result of a unitary human cell splitting to create two cells?
Was he not born of a woman?
No: he said he was sent by the Father. John 8:42
I never denied that...but you are denying he was in the bosom of the father while here on earth.
John 10:38
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Who and what was this "spiritual being?"
If you don't know who i am referring to why are you in this conversation?
You are an expert shape shifter, pretending to this and that, changing you mind on the hoof, with no fixed view on anything, speaking in riddles, contradicting yourself endlessly, and ultimately denying the incarnation, which is satanic.
you said every man is "made" in /as flesh, didn't you? therefore everyman is incarnated...
You deny the incarnation, so likely you also deny that the ascended Jesus sat down at the right hand of God.
Hindus believe in incarnation.
There is only one Jesus...
As a man, Jesus would have been dead in minutes as he ascended through the atmosphere.
Why? After his resurrection, Jesus cannot die again.
Romans 6:9
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
A man is mediating between God and believers...
Did he ascend to a spaceship, or to another planet, or where?
I never made those claims...You are building strawmen.
 
How ridiculous. If "God" isn't a category then we couldn't refer to "God". "The Father" and "the Son" are both "God" for they are one. This is what John's gospel says.
It's what you say. The Old Testament says that God is one person (singular).

Consider Jhn 14:23 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

"God is a Category" = polytheism, because even though unified, Jesus acknowledged his Father as separate and distinct from himself (contrary to your Sabellianism hat).

So by your "God is a Category" artifice, Jesus might have said "we two Gods will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

Presumably Zeus, Jupiter etc. would also be members of this category of "Gods"?

"God is a Category" is complete nonsense. Consider Paul the apostle: "There is one God, the Father....." Why do you contradict him?

John classified the word as "God". I don't know why you won't accept this fact.
Because he didn't. He restricted his usage of anarthrous theos to the context of the Word being governed by Jn 1:1b. Not a single commentator I have read would support you, except for Julian the Apostate (the Roman Emperor) who had a similar approach to you (He saw John as referring to two Gods).

You haven't given an assessment of its usage. You have restricted yourself to a narrow corpus (leaving off the testimony of other Jewish and Christian writers) and have excluded data that doesn't fit your conclusion such as the usage of unqualified articular phrases of different declensions like "ton theon". Your whole premise is nonsense.
Who cares what case the noun and article appear in, and why does it make any difference to their meaning / signification?

This is a logical fallacy. Even if every instance of the word "theos" in the New Testament only referred to "the Father" it wouldn't prove your point. You are unable to understand this indisputable fact, apparently.


Rubbish. People have made up many titles for him, both in his own time and ours. You seem entirely oblivious to what is "logical".
It doesn't mean that they had a right to make up their own title.

The word is intentionally described as "God" independently of "the Father" in John 1:1.
Absolute BS. There is no independence from the Father by virtue of Jn 1:1b.

That doesn't mean that they aren't unified, but it does tell us they each have their own distinct identity. For you to speculate that this unity was somehow severed because of his incarnation (This is what you appear to suggest. Feel free to clarify the point if that's not what you mean.) goes beyond the testimony of the text. Jesus says that he and "the Father" are one even during his incarnation.
Jesus and his Father remained unified, but when Jesus was in the flesh, they were then not co-located on the throne of God (big distinction). One major lacuna of yours is not to realize is that to be God, one must be residest on God's throne.

How absurd! There is nothing for me to support. My statement is an indisputable fact. Jesus never said anything about what "theos" could or could not refer to.
I think he did: John 4:24, and

Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

So we know that God had a son, Jesus.

At this point, I conclude your post as risible.

That's not a generalization. Every time I think your ignorance has peaked, you manage to reach new heights.
Speak for yourself. You clearly do not know the gospel of John.

This is simply a different version of the same logical failing you demonstrated above. You erroneously think that nonuse of a phrase is evidence in favor of your position. It's not. You won't interact with the very simple and clarifying example that I gave. How many toes did Jesus have? The text doesn't tell us. Does this mean that you don't believe he had ten toes?

In addition to that fact, Jesus directly states in John many times that the purpose of his ministry was to glorify the Father. Logically speaking, even if he were "God" during his incarnation (allow the premise for the moment as a theoretical exercise) he couldn't glorify the Father to the fullest extent if he mentioned his own status as "God". That alone would be enough to account for what we have recorded for us (since Jesus states that he and the Father are one). You've got nothing, cjab. Absolutely nothing.
So, we must conclude from your BS and from your failure to cite any examples to the contrary, that Jesus NEVER EVER refers to himself as theos or o theos.
 
Last edited:
It's what you say. The Old Testament says that God is one person (singular).

Consider Jhn 14:23 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

"God is a Category" = polytheism, because Jesus acknowledged his Father as separate from himself (contrary to your Sabellianism hat).

By your "God is a Category" artifice, Jesus might have said "we two Gods will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

Presumably Zeus, Jupiter etc. would also be members of this category of "Gods"?
"God" is a category. Even if "the Father" is all that you consider to be "God" it is a category of one. I can't think of a single flattering reason why you would dispute this fact.

What John says is that "the Father" is "God" and the word/Jesus is "God" and they are one. For him there is no problem in labeling "the Father" and the word/Jesus as "God", despite the fact that the two have separate identities (at least as it appears to us).
Because he didn't.
He certainly did. For the author it is clear that "theos" is not an exclusive reference to "the Father".
He restricted his usage of anarthrous theos to the context of the Word being governed by Jn 1:1b.
The arthrous/anathrous theos thing is rubbish. It is an idea completely fabricated by you. You do not have a single source to support the claim. All you have is your misunderstanding of what others have said which I have explained to you ad nauseam.

The distinction made between "the Father" and the son is accomplished by "pros ton theon". Their unity is established by "kai theos hn o logos."
Not a single commentator I have read would support you, except for Julian the Apostate (the Roman Emperor) who had a similar approach to you (He saw John as referring to two Gods).
How could you? You aren't even looking for what I've said. You are imagining that I am speaking of two Gods.
Who cares what case the noun and article appear in, and why does it make any difference to their meaning / signification?
:LOL: You apparently do. You limit the phrase to "o theos" (unqualified) after all.
God (nominative) knows us.
We know God (accusative).

If "o theos" must be a reference to "the Father", you should never see an article with ANY use of "theos" regardless of its case.
It doesn't mean that they had a right to make up their own title.
I don't recall seeing, "thou shalt not make up any titles for me".
Absolute BS. There is no independence from the Father by virtue of Jn 1:1b.
Logically, you can't be said to be with someone if you are that someone.
Jesus and his Father remained unified, but they were then not co-located on the throne of God (big distinction). One major lacuna of yours is not to realize is that to be God, one must be residest on God's throne.
The throne of God is said to belong both to God and the Lamb in Rev. 22:3. Oopsie to you.
I think he did: John 4:24, and

Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

So we know that God had a son, Jesus.

At this point, I conclude your post as risible.
There's nothing there that supports your claim. Your laughter is the laughter of fools.
Speak for yourself. You clearly do not know the gospel of John.
Every time you post you make a spectacle of yourself. You've done so at least three times in this post alone. Even if I don't know John's gospel, I clearly know it better than you do.
So, we must conclude from your BS and from your failure to cite any examples to the contrary, that Jesus NEVER EVER refers to himself as theos or o theos.
And again, whether he did or he didn't it wouldn't prove anything. I just explained this to you. Your failure to interact with what I wrote says all that I, or anyone else, needs to know: you've got nothing.
 
"God" is a category. Even if "the Father" is all that you consider to be "God" it is a category of one. I can't think of a single flattering reason why you would dispute this fact.
Because you offer up only yourself as evidence for it, and which is contrary to the evidence of Jesus that true God is his Father. I'm accusing you of teaching false doctrines and of being a heresiarch. That we even have the idea of a "true God" who is by definition the Father of Jesus suggests you're talking nonsense,

What John says is that "the Father" is "God" and the word/Jesus is "God" and they are one. For him there is no problem in labeling "the Father" and the word/Jesus as "God", despite the fact that the two have separate identities (at least as it appears to us).
No, John says the Father is "The God" and that the Word is God subject to the Jn 1:1b criteria.

He certainly did. For the author it is clear that "theos" is not an exclusive reference to "the Father".

The arthrous/anathrous theos thing is rubbish. It is an idea completely fabricated by you. You do not have a single source to support the claim. All you have is your misunderstanding of what others have said which I have explained to you ad nauseam.
Every single scholar I have read not limited to Winer, and including many others, and including presumably all 25 scholars on the NET bible team, place importance on the distinction between theos with and without the article.

So you have set yourself against the world's best scholars and without a shred of authority to support you, except your own monstrously inflated ego.

The distinction made between "the Father" and the son is accomplished by "pros ton theon". Their unity is established by "kai theos hn o logos."
Obviously

How could you? You aren't even looking for what I've said. You are imagining that I am speaking of two Gods.
You are speaking of two Gods, for there is only one. The accusative in pros ton theon is just to satisfy the requirement of the preposition πρός. Otherwise it is redundant. It imparts a particular sense to the preposition πρός, but does not otherwise affect the one entitled "theos," who is distinct from the one entitled "logos."

:LOL: You apparently do. You limit the phrase to "o theos" (unqualified) after all.
God (nominative) knows us.
We know God (accusative).

If "o theos" must be a reference to "the Father", you should never see an article with ANY use of "theos" regardless of its case.
Theos can be and is used as noun rather than as a title in sundry places, including Jn 20:28.

I don't recall seeing, "thou shalt not make up any titles for me".
Prov 30:5,6 "Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will rebuke you, and you will be proved a liar"

Logically, you can't be said to be with someone if you are that someone.

The throne of God is said to belong both to God and the Lamb in Rev. 22:3. Oopsie to you.
Of course, and that is because they are re-united in heaven.

There's nothing there that supports your claim. Your laughter is the laughter of fools.

Every time you post you make a spectacle of yourself. You've done so at least three times in this post alone. Even if I don't know John's gospel, I clearly know it better than you do.
Yes, I allow you to be a "know it all" completely lacking in any humility, and one of the most conceited individuals I have ever come across, and withal having a strange inability to understand the basics of Koine grammar, such as the usage of the article, which is rather different in Koine to that in ancient Greek.

And again, whether he did or he didn't it wouldn't prove anything. I just explained this to you. Your failure to interact with what I wrote says all that I, or anyone else, needs to know: you've got nothing.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you are the one doing that... Believers have only one God...you have more than one
That is a libel that I am not predisposed to put up with. You can certainly attack JM on this point, who believes that "God is a category", but you can't attack me as I don't believe the same as him.

Let me explain why there is no point in continuing this debate. Your extremist unitarian creed is based in heresy akin to unenlightened Judaism, which gave rise to sundry heresies, long condemned of old, including adoptionism, and is kept relevant today only by its attacks against the opposite high Trinitarian/Sabellian error. You live for attacking high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism. Since I don't credit it, you're attacking the wrong person.

Thus your unitarianism fails to consider that the "Word of God" uttered by the prophets was "God," even in the Old Testament, in that anyone who disobeyed it was given over to immediate destruction. Indeed your earlier repudiation of even the very principle of divine ageny is a statement that you are clueless as to how God works.

In so far as you may have valid points against the JM version of high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism, you fail to consider that your own position is far from orthodox. Indeed it is impossible for anyone to understand you, because you chop and change your mind, and because you are COMPLETELY incoherent: eg. you say "Jesus came out from God all other sons are born by faith" but yet you deny the incarnation of Jn 1:14 and accuse anyone who believes in it of being a Hindu.

You have recourse to scurrilous tactics e.g. you said to me "You think that Jesus was not a man" - even when I have said many times that he was 100% man. You accuse me of polytheism, even though I acknowledge God as the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3). I conclude you are an inveterate slanderer.

You are a stormtrooper, and on a one man mission, which is to attack high Trinitarianism / Sabellianism. But when you're faced with the truth, which is not Sabellian, you carry on attacking as you can't desist. You have to continually make things up in order to carry on attacking.

Your unitarianism is so extreme that you don't recognize the incarnation of Jn 1:14. You say that "Jesus Christ came from God" but you cannot articulate how he came or where he was before he came. And if you say, well he was simply predestined in the mind of God, such is meaningless; for so too was every other believer. And where did Jesus ascend to? Answer the questions coherently, or shut up.




I already did. You are not reading my posts

We are reading the same bible are we not? It says Jesus was a man.
Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

You are the one on dodgy ground. You think that Jesus was not a man.

Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

God is a title in every case...You are in denial. Titles are nouns.
Absolute rubbish. "The God of me" in John 20:28 is a noun usage, as also in Jn 1:1c, John 10:34-36, 2 Cor 4:4, and elsewhere.

Noun usage of "God" certainly carries the implication of agency of the one who does bear the title of God, where the context allows.

So is there another Jesus apart from the one in the NT?

Jesus came out from God all other sons are born by faith.

I just explained all men became flesh from a sperm and an egg.

And we call that spiritual being Jesus. You might ask why, it is because the spiritual being became flesh...When he became flesh he said he was with the father.

Yes and the spiritual being became flesh=Jesus

And you said every man is "made" in /as flesh, therefore everyman is incarnated...

how so? I am posting the scriptures that destroy your nonsense.

Where did I say that? You seem very confused...Please point to the post where I said that.

What are you talking about...Jesus came through the birth canal as a man, and he ascended as a man.
 
Last edited:
Because you offer up only yourself as evidence for it, and which is contrary to the evidence of Jesus that true God is his Father. I'm accusing you of teaching false doctrines and of being a heresiarch. That we even have the idea of a "true God" who is by definition the Father of Jesus suggests you're talking nonsense,
I don't really know what you are responding to. The part you've quoted or the part you've highlighted. My point was that to deny that "God" is a category runs counter to all good sense. If you deny this then...
No, John says the Father is "The God" and that the Word is God subject to the Jn 1:1b criteria.
John says that the word was God. That is to say he and "the God" were both identical in nature. Their identities are distinguished from each other by "pros ton theon". The way that John framed it, there is nothing to forbid the understanding that they were two separate Gods, unless one relies on background knowledge, and it isn't until later that John reveals exactly what he meant (that God and Jesus are one).
Every single scholar I have read not limited to Winer, and including many others, and including presumably all 25 scholars on the NET bible team, place importance on the distinction between theos with and without the article.
What is this other than a transparent effort to be deceptive? I've never denied the importance of the article here. I do not support your claim about the difference the article makes, and you have no support for that specific claim. You imagine that "unqualified o theos" must always be a title and a default reference to the Father. This is where you lose 100% of your supposed scholarly support. There is not a single scholar to support your errant belief, and you don't know the language to make a claim on your own. You constantly misread your sources as I have demonstrated for you. If you truly are a lawyer/paralegal/whatever, there is no doubt you have to be among the worst; I can't imagine how inept you would be at writing and/or understanding contracts.
So you have set yourself against the world's best scholars and without a shred of authority to support you, except your own monstrously inflated ego.
Personal comments are not a replacement for arguments, cjab. Does it make you feel better to do that than to acknowledge your errors? In any case I'm the one in agreement with the scholars as I have demonstrated. You are the one without a shred of support.
Obviously
If it is obvious why do you claim that it is the use/disuse of the article that distinguishes the word from God?
You are speaking of two Gods, for there is only one.
I just denied having said this. Why are you arguing with yet another fact?
The accusative in pros ton theon is just to satisfy the requirement of the preposition πρός.
I never said anything about the accusative in this phrase. Why would you mention it?
Otherwise it is redundant. It imparts a particular sense to the preposition πρός, but does not otherwise affect the one entitled "theos," who is distinct from the one entitled "logos."
Ah, I think I get it. You must not understand what I said earlier about the accusative case and, true to form, applied my remarks to something irrelevant. I'll try to clarify. What the phrase "pros ton theon" does is distinguish the identity of "the Father" (as you say) from the word since one isn't typically thought of as being with himself/herself. With this separation established, even if the author had written "o logos hn o theos", there would be likely be no confusion of identity as what followed "o logos hn o theos" would make the meaning of two identities referred to as "God" clear. The separation established between the identities of Jesus and "the God" by "pros ton theon" in Jn. 1:1 means that when we get to Jn. 20:28 there is no danger of conflating the identity of Jesus with "the Father" (unless one willfully substitutes the reference to Jesus for "the Father" as you do.).

The accusative would only matter here in regards to my earlier remarks if it were applied to another "god". Because "pros" does not require an article, the use of the article for a false god (pros ton theon) would disprove your (already logically unsound) notion that "unqualified o theos" is a default reference to the Father, because you have not established a distinction in the use of the article from case to case. You have assumed it as you are wont to do. If your assumption were correct, there would be no reason to ever see the article used with any "god" since its use can be avoided. Your attempt to rule out qualifiers like "my" in Jn. 20:28 is nothing more than the removal of contrary evidence without any justifiable reason.
Theos can be and is used as noun rather than as a title in sundry places, including Jn 20:28.
"o theos" shouldn't be able to be used as a reference to anything if it is an exclusive reference to "the Father". Otherwise, you are admitting that the usage is contextual as I have asserted all along.
Prov 30:5,6 "Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will rebuke you, and you will be proved a liar"
I see you don't understand that passage either.
Of course, and that is because they are re-united in heaven.
According to John there was never a time when they weren't "one".
Yes, I allow you to be a "know it all" completely lacking in any humility, and one of the most conceited individuals I have ever come across, and withal having a strange inability to understand the basics of Koine grammar, such as the usage of the article,
The only one of us who supports his statements with evidence is me. All you have are personal attacks such as this. Grow up.
which is rather different in Koine to that in ancient Greek.
There is little difference between the two. Koine is much easier to understand. If you can read Attic, Koine is no problem at all. Only those that can read neither imagine a great gulf between the two. This is more evidence of your ignorance, though there is more than enough of that already.
 
Back
Top