Search results

Not sure why it took them so long to reach this obvious conclusion, since the expression μονογενὴς Θεὸς nowhere else occurs in the Scripture but μονογενής υιός appears in multiple biblical books and authors.

Yep.

Are you saying the NT teaches that Jesus was a human sacrifice to God for the remission of our sins ?

The LXX translator at verse 6 was looking here (bold above) perhaps for the antecedent , but that is to mis-read the context and mischaracterize the antecedent, since the verse is speaking of having confidence ( πεποιθὼς) in God ( θεῷ above) and not in wisdom .

Yes.

I was studying the Hebrew and Greek of Proverbs 3 and noticed the following at verse 6: Notice the feminine form of the pronoun. It should be masculine (αὐτὸν ) shouldn't it ? I think the LXX wants the antecedent of the pronoun to be "wisdom" (σοφία) maybe, but that is no where near the...

It's quite disingenuous of you folks to say "God" when you actually have three who are each God. Any honest person would have to then say "three Gods." So say "Gods are love" not "God is love."

Yeah, in fact such a "Christ" is supremely worthy of the title of "Son of the Father of Lies."

2 John 1:7– Spirit of anti- Christ

John Milton is a prophet of Baal, whether he knows it or not.

"The word" is not a being. At least not according to scripture.

That is unscriptural. The apostle John identified the Word made flesh as Jesus.

When it is irrefutably clear the we two common nouns are in view , the TSKTS construction denotes two individuals or two different things . For example : John 2:22

As I said you are arguing from the fringes. It is highly unlikely that John 13:13 is an example of a TSKTS construction since at least one of the substantives is likely the functional equivalent of a proper noun. You are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus is being called God here, yet all...

As I predicted, you are arguing from the grammatical fringes . The terms ὁ διδάσκαλος and ὁ κύριος are the functional equivalents of proper names in this verse, so the TSKTS rule does not apply . False analogy. Fact of the matter is that ὁ Θεός μου in John 20:28 can easily be taken to denote...

Unfortunately it is dubious, and I can give a few arguments why, not just rant about it like you are doing. For starters, the TSKTS construction castes serious doubt on the notion that one person is in view with the following words -- Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. You basically have to...

That is false, none of your examples are irrefutable, all lend themselves to more than one reading. For instance at John 20:28 ὁ Θεός easily could refer to the Father. There is nothing grammatically or contextually preventing this understanding. Infact to equate ὁ Θεός here with Jesus is...

False. You have not given me a single irrefutable example.

That is an English word used to translate Trinitarians' definition of οὐσία. Again, this is just another English word Trinitarians use to say οὐσία. You seem to have it all wrong. The definition which Trinitarians have given to the word οὐσία belongs to post biblical Greek theology...

Could you give us all of the verses where this is apparently the case ? Because grammatically and contextually it makes the most sense that ὁ θεός in John 20:28 refers to the Father.