Search results

  1. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    That's funny, it is quite common in theological works to capitalize God when it is common: e.g. "my God". Either, your grammar is incorrect, it doesn't apply in these theological works, or these works are wrong all over the place. Pick any option, and your critique falls flat. Whether or not it...
  2. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    This response is nonsensical. There is nothing about having or not having used the world "already" that would imply they mean different things. Was does not mean became. Was literally implies a state that existed the in past; not a state that started in the past. If the Word was in the...
  3. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    I don't remember that. Where? Quote a grammar that says in theological works it is wrong to capitalize common uses of God. If you're to lazy to quote it "again", I have no reason to take your claim seriously. And yet, such does not condemn the capitalization of the word God. FYI, that "there...
  4. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    No. One would think such was obvious.
  5. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    There is no meaningful/logical difference between saying "In the beginning was the Word," and saying the Word already was in the beginning. Both mean that the Word is uncreated. Your illustration is so far beyond belief, no refutation is necessary. This kind of "reasoning" can justify...
  6. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    Empty hubris. Responses like this will simply be deleted below. Clearly you've never read an academically rigorous exegetical commentaries. You could have just said "it's a genitive of separation" when I first asked you to explain yourself. I guess your hubris wouldn't allow you act with...
  7. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    This is an quotation without context. Notice, the quote above does not equate appellatives with proper nouns. My argument is about proper nouns. Why don't you take the tine to fill out your case for why God in "there is no God" is proper. God Bless
  8. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    John 1:1 does not say God created the Word. It actually says the Word already was in the beginning meaning that the Word is uncreated. Given that you are not using instrument as it pertains to the Text of Scripture, I'm going to ignore every application of the term instrument you use. BTW...
  9. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    Silly goose, you said Isaiah 45:5 used God as a proper noun. That would make the clause "Besides me there is no God" convey that YHWH is the only one named God. Such was simply false; and it does nothing to convey monotheism. This is why I asked my rhetorical question; I'm trying to get you to...
  10. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    If you had to modify Scripture to present your concept of agencies, then you have nothing to stand on. 1. Wrong. God created Adam. Then, God used Adam as his instrument in creating the rest of human life. This is why your illustration doesn't work. You don't have God creating Jesus first...
  11. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    I don't remember you saying to me that John 1:1 could be said of Adam. You said John 1:3 could be said of Adam. Either way, that's absurd. One cannot say "Adam was God" because Adam was not God. One cannot say "In the beginning was Adam". In the beginning Adam was made, but not simply was...
  12. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    To be more correct, John the Baptist was sent by God to be a witness to who the Light/Life/Word was according to God. Hello? The Apostle John is an apostle. He is literally one with the authority to write Scripture, to convey God's words to us. If the Apostle himself interprets John the...
  13. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    How does giving another name to YHWH convey monotheism? Especially when the new name is the generic common noun used by other religions to express their polytheism? What a waste of time. Thank you for clarifying. If people do so even when there is no logical or grammatical reason to do so...
  14. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    This comparison is not logical. John the Baptist, as a prophet, was comparing his rank to the rank of another prophet to Jews. The trinitarians you're referring to are making a theological point that is directly relevant to your disagreement with Trinitarian Orthodoxy. The contexts of the...
  15. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    Maybe we need to travel down it again because you missed the point. What is Isaiah 45:5 conveying to the reader? What is the point of lets say Isaiah 40-46. The point is monotheism, and a proper use of God in Isaiah 45:5 does not convey such. Oh my gosh, I made a typo. The world is ending...
  16. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    No, the sentence "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made" categorically denies the possibility that "the Word began to live in the beginning". This is just logical. Using argumentum ad absurdum, if the Word began to live in the beginning, we can conclude the...
  17. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    I'm not denying that the punctuation is found in the NA28 and NRSV. I'm telling you there are various reasons to think they made a mistake in going with that punctuation. And, I've given you a very powerful reason to reject the possibility of that punctuation as being what John was trying to...
  18. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    Again, I already expressed "what came to be in him was life" was a perfectly find rendering of ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ. Therefore, justifying that εν and δι can be used to express instrumental agency was a waste of time. I've already admitted as such. What I've denied is that this punctuation can...
  19. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    Read more carefully: The ESV didn't say... VS I said... Really, what is Isaiah 45:5 conveying to the reader? What is the point of lets say Isaiah 40-46. Accept in genitive phrases or when it is articular. Maybe this hard fast rule isn't as hard fast as you think. No, I'm trying to force...
  20. D

    The "gods" of John 10:34-35

    The Word is neither a physical object nor an abstract concept in John 1. The Word is a person. This definition for instrumental case simply doesn't apply; remember we are not talking about a case, but a cause. The Greek preposition διά can/many times does indicate the instrumental cause of the...
Top