Going all the way back to Genesis 1 we see “God” and “the spirit of God” mentioned. A bit later we see “let us make man in our image.” Going solely by what is in the text the only referent possible to refer to by God with the word “us” is “the spirit of God” unless he is referring to himself in the plural which is a possibility though you deny it. It is only if one approaches the text with innumerable preconceived assumptions (as you clearly do) that possibilities are missed.
Your argument is shot full of holes due to the key verses in Gen 1:27 "So God created mankind in
his own image," and in Gen 1:29 "
I give you...." Where God is a direct personal referent, then the singular is always used.
Only where God is an indirect referent, i.e. allowing for the involvement of subordinates (i.e. the heavenly host), is the plural pronoun is used. "Let us make man...." clearly allows for the involvement of angels in the role of creation.
You couldn’t have used all of them correctly. For instance, “God” is not a name.
Hair splitting as "God" is sui generis in the NT and the OT when used as an unqualified subject.
As I’ve said repeatedly, you cannot produce a single scholar that supports your claim that “o theos” is a default reference to the Father.
It is a matter of theology as to who "o theos" denotes.
Jesus and the apostles John are my witnesses. As I've said all along, find me one unqualified reference to “o theos” in the mouth of Christ or in the writings of John that is not a reference to the Father. I don't need any other witnesses.
Ultimately it comes down to "Do you follow Christ" or some high Trinitarian/Sabellian heretic?
You don't seem to understand that Christianity has been shot through with heretics since the year dot preaching all kinds of nonsense. It was Julian the Apostate who, presumably following the pagan system of defining "theos", saw John as setting up another God besides the Father. He was condemned by God at the hands of fate and suffered an early death.
Do you want to follow him?
Here the author leaves open the possibility that anarthrous theos can be a title.
Such doesn't not affect my position, because I have never argued the converse, i.e. that the article is always required, but which you seem to want to maliciously impute to me nonetheless. The grammatical finness of omitting the article only derogates from the specific personal reference down to the nature/actions etc of God, which are frequent. Indeed it is quite easy to predict when the article will be omitted.
This is contra your position. Also, he makes no distinction between modified and unmodified constructions. That is, as I’ve pointed out all along, your own invention which finds no scholarly support.
See above.
According to this articulation, the person of God (Jesus) would be in view at John 20:28 or the “person” of God would be in view in Php. 3:19. It is clear from what I cited earlier that the author viewed these passages as exceptions to his earlier remarks. You are applying the author’s remarks more broadly than the author himself. You have no support from Greenlee.
This is scurrilous, as some references to theos are qualified. A qualified use always infers the common noun sense, and so is distinguishable from an unqualified use. In such cases the notion of God/god is largely determined by the precise qualification introduced.
It would only be “Sabellianisn” if “o theos” is assumed to be a default reference to “the Father”.
“o theos” is a default reference to “the Father” in the mouth of Christ. Refusal to accept this core doctrine is, to me at least, a distinguishing mark of heresy - and a very dangerous heresy because it confounds the gospel by setting up a false philosophical gospel at variance with Christ's own teaching.
They are giving lip service to the fact that a noun is used, but they are treating it as though it were an adjective. The fact is that the Word is called “God” and distinguished from an earlier mentioned “God”. Later, John says that the two are one, but few seem willing to entertain the notion that all of what John wrote is true. Most tend to reinterpret one statement to align it with the other.
If I say "The man is a dog", I am using "dog" adjectivally. Your grammatical objection is misplaced. The "two being one" simply means that the God-like characteristics and actions of the Word derive from the Father and from the relation of the Word to the Father, who is the origin/source of all things.
It’s all a bunch of bickering about something that doesn’t matter much, and it’s made worse by the ignorant arguments such as yours that have no basis at all in the grammar. You’ve simply chosen isolated statements from grammarians and cite them in “support” of arguments the authors themselves never advanced. You cannot produce a single grammarian that has made the specific claims you are making. You even disregard the fact that Caragounis himself treats capitalizes “theos” when it refers to “the word”.
You misinterpret the grammarians because your own theology is so wayward. Theos is always capitalized re the Word because the God-like powers of the Word derive from the Father "who is in all" to a greater or lesser extent, but in the Word to the maximum extent (Col 2:9).