Search results

Such wouldn't stop "God" from functioning as a proper noun (as grammar doesn't function in that way). Trinitarians who saw "God" as functioning as a proper noun in both clauses didn't see it as a contradiction(. Moreover, neither do Modalists who still view "God" as a proper noun). Except by...

Why did you reply to this post (again) when my latest post to you is in this hyperlink--meaning we're past the post you responded to?

If one has to " identify what translations or texts are used and what the context is for those texts", your comment could be said about any question in any OP.

No and yes. Agreed.

The location of the verb doesn't have anything to do with either translation, so what are you talking about?

Clearly you aren't following the discussion.

I started to post this.

According to 3 English translations of John 10:36, Jesus is not only "the son of God" (NKJV) but "a son of God" (CJB), ie, "God's son" (DLNT).

I didn't. You did. This is why I said you need to re-read(, and read for understanding). Now, for the umpteenth time, according to English grammar: IOW, when God is both anarthrous and capitalized, it functions as a proper noun. "God" at both John 1:1c and John 10:34 fall into this...

John 10:36:

John 10:36:

I've read this work.

If God's son is dead, he cannot resurrect himself.

What do you mean by Word (God)? Did he(, or is this your interpretation)? The "mighty god' of Isaiah 9:6 is not the 'mighty god' of Isaiah 10:21.

The phrase "fully human...as well as God" is an oxymoron. I've stated this already. Why would "deities judging anyone on earth" be a sin when humans can judge other humans? The sin would be judging unjustly (no matter who was doing the judging). BTW, no one is saying the QEOI at Psalm 82 are...

No. I don't see why MONOGENHS would be translated as 'only' (when MONOS by itself means 'only'). I don't see why MONOGENHS would be translated as 'one of a kind' when the parents are 'the same kind' as the one called MONOGENHS. I don't see why MONOGENHS would be translated as 'unique' when the...

You may want to consult another because MONOGENHS does not carry the connotation of hEIS KAI MONOS (as it ignores the -GENHS suffix of MONOGENHS). Furthermore, son would be a translation of hUIOS, which is usually absent in the texts where MONOGENHS is used. Dead people can't raise the dead...

You may need to re-read the conversation. Again, re-read what was written. It's comments like this that demonstrate you don't understand what you read. Which is why--contextually speaking--Baal doesn't count. (However, you didn't ask a question that referred to anything "contextual". You...

1 Timothy 2:5 says otherwise(--which agrees with John 1:14: "the Word became flesh"). John 2:19-22 never says he raises himself from the dead(, nor does any text confirm that Jesus resurrected himself). Instead, they (all) state: "God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of...

"There is not, never has been and never will be any human person who is 'monogenes' as Jesus is" doesn't change the meaning of MONOGENHS OldShepherd. I'm not sure how this helps your argument seeing that Liddell and Scott's entry was changed from "only begotten" (1889): to: in 1940--not only...