Recent content by The Real John Milton

  1. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    You are an unorthodox (heterodox) Trinitarian I suppose : acknowledging that he was God "before" the Incarnation, but not during. This position is just as unscriptural.
  2. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    What do you mean by “not an ordinary man” ? The bible says he was a human being like us in all ways, and subject to temptation like us all, yet without sin. If none of us can live the kind of life he did, then he was not a genuine human being & effectively cheating & the bible is lying when...
  3. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    For starters, he was the only man who did not sin; he was the perfect image of God — which the first Adam failed to live up to when he ate from the tree.
  4. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (the son of God) is an appositive. Therefore ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is another way of saying ὁ Χριστὸς (the Christ). ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ doesn't mean "God the Son" or "God" or some other meaning derived from pagan fantasy, but it means "the Anointed of God," "Messiah," "the prophet who was...
  5. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    Not sure where you are getting the idea that monotheism is multiple (or poly) God persons /Gods exercising “one power of God.” The polytheism lies in the multiple persons, not in the apparent one power. Anytime you have more than one person who is God, you have poly(more than one)theism or...
  6. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    No, they believe Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the same God in different forms. Hinduism may be said to be the original Sabellianism. You are espousing paganism I fear.
  7. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    Don’t see how that changes anything. If a Hindu said that Shiva (from this Trinity ) wasn’t God “independently” of Brahma, does that make him less of a polytheist ?
  8. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    As I explained you can’t get that from the grammar and further it is polytheism plus the text at John 1:1 doesn’t even mention Jesus. And that’s just for starters.
  9. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    Not sure what that means . Meaning of words do not have to do with “essential properties” but with definition, that is, with what the language has seen fit to categorize someone or something as based on one or more shared characteristics , and not necessarily with “sufficient essential...
  10. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    Not necessarily , that is a philosophical statement which grammar does not and cannot address. All grammar denotes by the indefinite ἄνθρωπός or “a man” ( be it Greek or English) is that that someone falls within the category of the group defined as ἄνθρωπός even if they have only some of the...
  11. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    So Matthew 8:9 The Centurion is not saying that he is a man, but that he is a human essence under authority ?
  12. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    You are not kidding, are you ? Nonsense.
  13. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    For the obvious ? Look at the following: Ἰησοῦς ἦν άνθρωπος ….means “Jesus was a man” NOT “ Jesus was a certain man” NOR “Jesus had the essence of man.”
  14. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    No, also true when it is a predicate nominative, and often also true when it is a direct object ( in the accusative) , etc.
  15. T

    Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

    I just told you that. άνθρωπος τις means “ a certain man.” But when Koine wants to say simply “ a man” it uses the anarthrous form άνθρωπος, without τις.
Top