καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

[cjab]

Because it can be definite in either case. The only question is whether/how God can be "one" if there are two beings referred to as God.

I don't understand how it can be definite when it is indefinite?

Because Christians aren't Jews. Christians have different views. A Jewish reader reading John would expect to have a different view of Jesus than they do. They wouldn't be sure what the author meant.

I don't agree. Christians are honorary Jews, and all the apostles were Jews. We have to understand their point of view. We can't invent a non-apostolic doctrine just because we feel like it.

No. Such an understanding is nearly impossible.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει
The son of God has arrived. [This means the subject is Jesus]

καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν,
and gave to us a mind/understanding [Jesus is still the subject. The pronoun does not refer to God, obviously.]

ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν,
that we might know the truth/true one [Subject changed to "we" after the previous pronoun ἡμῖν.]

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ,
and we are in the truth/true one [Same subject "we."]

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
in his son Jesus Christ. [The parallelism of this phrase the previous statement (ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ) identifies Jesus with the truth/true one. We are in the truth/true one, in his son Jesus Christ.]

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
This is the true God and eternal life. [The most likely referent is Jesus Christ the nearest grammatical antecedent. This is even more likely in context since Jesus had just been identified as the truth/true one. God is nowhere in immediate view. This understanding is confirmed when verse 11 is examined ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεός, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Thus, I John 5:20 concludes by identifying Jesus, the true one and eternal life, as God.]

By your own rule of "nearest grammatical antecedent", the "αὐτοῦ" in "ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ." must refer back to either

(a) "Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" (the nearest named human antecedent) in which case the Son of God becomes the Father of Jesus Christ.
or
(b) "τῷ ἀληθινῷ" (the nearest non-human/non-named antecedent) in which case "the truth" / "him who is true" is the Father of Jesus Christ, suggesting that this Father is also the "ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς" because otherwise the Son of God would be God i.e. his own Father.

Jesus is never anyone else apart from the Son of God in 1 John except the Word of Life. He is never God, because God is the Father of the Son. See the opening verses of 1 John 1. This infers that the Father is being associated with God. Jesus is introduced as the "son of God" and the epistle continues on in that vein. Why would it suddenly start referring to Jesus as God?

You must maintain consistency throughout the whole epistle. You can't suddenly introduce a radical change in nomenclature because you feel that some grammatical antecedent should be the "nearest." In fact your "rule" breaks down anyway in 1 John 5:20 (see (a) immediately above).

I can't think why there should be such a rule. It must surely be defined by context as in English. Anyway, I see all the reputable translations do not try to force ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς to be Jesus Christ.

Ok.

No, that it must be understood in the same way as it is in 1:1b. It could be indefinite, it could have a different lexical meaning, etc.

I gave you the most likely understanding of the passage above. It is almost certainly the correct understanding.

He did. But this doesn't address the following questions:
1) Was Jesus divested of his divinity as a man?
2) Was Jesus still God even if he did not possess his divine nature? (Because his identity did not change, even if his status did.)
Your understanding of the issues is incomplete.

I don't see how. Is this the passage you intended to cite?

I don't see how this is relevant either.

Sorry. Gave you the wrong passage. Meant John 17:3.

But yet you seem to think that only God the Father is the true God? I'm not understanding you somewhere.

God the Father is used by 3 x Apostles, 1 x Jude, and by JC (John 20:17) in the NT. What's the objection?

"God the Father" is new testament orthodoxy.

I understand your point, but if pressed to its extreme we would be forced to say that they are both currently hidden, since we don't have any "actual manifestation" of God at the moment.

The Holy Spirit is what we have.

I don't think it possible to "figure it out." If you have God's manifestation in one place and that God directing praise to another place, we have no way of conceptualizing that without understanding two "personalities/beings" even if we are aware that this understanding isn't quite right.

There are certainly two spiritual beings but the Father remains always hidden (Colossians 1:15). The Word/Son reveals the Father. This is orthodox.

There are several places where Jesus is called God. Most notably John 20:28.

Thomas wasn't speaking doctrinally but emotionally, because he had just been caught out in disbelief. But in any case, it could be correct to call the risen Son "God" on the proviso we acknowledge the Father as the authority for the Son's deity. What doesn't seem to be orthodox is to boldly ignore the Father in proclaiming "Jesus as God." That shows a lack of understanding.

I don't know why you say I have equivocated. I have plainly told you: 1) I have no idea how it all works. 2) I don't think anyone else knows how it works either. All I can say is what scripture says: Jesus is called God. God the Father is called God. God is one. I don't know how that works, and I don't think that possessing that understanding is necessary for eternal life.

I think it is incumbent to realize that the NT conventional nomenclature is "God the Father" and Jesus "Son, Son of God, Word, Word of Life, Lord" and only "God on the privso you also state why and when he is God, i.e. because of the Father and when seated at his right hand - i.e. when with God."

That's good. I'll take the implication as an unintended consequence of the discussion. I have enjoyed talking to you.

What implication? I wasn't implying anything.

 

[cjab]

Is that all you have are fallacious arguments?

How can a question amount to a fallacious argument?

Im not oneness. Trinitarians do not teach the Father is the Son. Plus the Son is Eternal in the same way the Father is Eternal. There is no time distinction or anything where the Father existed before the Son.

It’s why the phrase Eternal Generation exists.

Have you ever read or studied the Creeds of Christendom?

And obviously you have never put any time whatsoever into the study of Christology. I have been studying it daily for over 40 years and counting .

hope this helps !!!

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Cor 1:20). I reckon so. Sad that you can't see it.

 

[guest1]

How can a question amount to a fallacious argument?


Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Cor 1:20). I reckon so. Sad that you can't see it.

Yes your apologetics are sad indeed .

 

[cjab]

Yes your apologetics are sad indeed .

Let's take

8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.

Let's take

1Jo 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his (αὐτοῦ) Son Jesus Christ.

So the referent of αὐτοῦ is the Father in 1Jo 1:3

You (Wallace) "What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent."

And you accuse me of "sad apologetics?"

 

[The Real John Milton]

Miracles do happen, RJM; you are partially right! The true one has to be a reference to God. This doesn't mean that "this" refers to God, but it does make it much more likely. It's an even split between Jesus, who is consistently called life and is the nearest referent, and God, who isn't the nearest referent but was just called the true one.

Your biblical Koine is just weak.

 

[guest1]

Let's take

8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.

Let's take

1Jo 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his (αὐτοῦ) Son Jesus Christ.

So the referent of αὐτοῦ is the Father in 1Jo 1:3

You (Wallace) "What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent."

And you accuse me of "sad apologetics?"

You have a serious comprehension issue . Try rereading Wallace I’m not spoon feeding you.

 

[John Milton]

I don't understand how it can be definite when it is indefinite?

It could be definite; it could be indefinite.

I don't agree.

Ok.

Christians are honorary Jews, and all the apostles were Jews. We have to understand their point of view. We can't invent a non-apostolic doctrine just because we feel like it.

The only people who are in danger of inventing doctrine are those who affirm more than what the text says. Many are guilty of that; as far as I know, I'm not one of them. I'm certainly not on this matter.

By your own rule of "nearest grammatical antecedent", the "αὐτοῦ" in "ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ." must refer back to either

(a) "Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" (the nearest named human antecedent) in which case the Son of God becomes the Father of Jesus Christ.
or
(b) "τῷ ἀληθινῷ" (the nearest non-human/non-named antecedent) in which case "the truth" / "him who is true" is the Father of Jesus Christ, suggesting that this Father is also the "ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς" because otherwise the Son of God would be God i.e. his own Father.

I made a mistake earlier. The translation was good, but the explanation was not. I wrongly associated τὸν ἀληθινόν with Jesus instead of God, and carried that mistake throughout. I amended my remarks in post #180.

However, what is at issue is how to understand οὗτός. For it the nearest referent is Jesus, not God but there are good arguments for either God or Jesus.

Jesus is never anyone else apart from the Son of God in 1 John except the Word of Life. He is never God, because God is the Father of the Son. See the opening verses of 1 John 1. This infers that the Father is being associated with God. Jesus is introduced as the "son of God" and the epistle continues on in that vein. Why would it suddenly start referring to Jesus as God?

I don't follow you. The word is called God in John 1:1. Jesus is identified as the word, therefore Jesus is called God. In John 1:18 Jesus is called the God in the bosom of God. Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28, a verse that cannot be interpreted in any plausible way that does not have Thomas calling Jesus God. The entire gospel refers to Jesus as God.

You must maintain consistency throughout the whole epistle. You can't suddenly introduce a radical change in nomenclature because you feel that some grammatical antecedent should be the "nearest." In fact your "rule" breaks down anyway in 1 John 5:20 (see (a) immediately above).

I wish you would stop accusing me of things I'm not doing. It's beginning to annoy me. I didn't change "nomenclature" (whatever you mean by that), and I have said that it is not an absolute rule. However, it is far more likely that a pronoun will refer to its closest possible antecedent than to one that is more remote. This "rule" as you have called it does "break down," even in I John, but this does not happen as frequently.

I can't think why there should be such a rule. It must surely be defined by context as in English. Anyway, I see all the reputable translations do not try to force ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς to be Jesus Christ.

Ah, breaking out the "no true Scotsman." Most translations will leave it ambiguous as I did in my own translation above.

Sorry. Gave you the wrong passage. Meant John 17:3.

Ah, that makes more sense.

God the Father is used by 3 x Apostles, 1 x Jude, and by JC (John 20:17) in the NT. What's the objection?

"God the Father" is new testament orthodoxy.

Yes. But we also have Jesus called God repeated and credited with tasks that only God can do. Why are you choosing to ignore those facts in favor of the others?

The Holy Spirit is what we have.

I don't disagree. However, that's not what you said, and it's not what I was responding to.

There are certainly two spiritual beings but the Father remains always hidden (Colossians 1:15). The Word/Son reveals the Father. This is orthodox.

Certainly not to a Jew! (Sorry, I couldn't help it.)

I'm even more confused by your remarks now. You just mentioned the Holy Spirit and then forget about him immediately. Then you seem to think "unseen/invisible" means "hidden." The Father constantly reveals the attributes that can be known about God by what he has created per Paul in Romans 1:19-20.

Thomas wasn't speaking doctrinally but emotionally, because he had just been caught out in disbelief.

Speculation. But one thing is for sure: he called Jesus God.

But in any case, it could be correct to call the risen Son "God" on the proviso we acknowledge the Father as the authority for the Son's deity. What doesn't seem to be orthodox is to boldly ignore the Father in proclaiming "Jesus as God." That shows a lack of understanding.

It's not ignoring God to acknowledge that his word calls Jesus God repeatedly. Beside, I don't know of any Christian who ignores God the Father for Jesus.

I think it is incumbent to realize that the NT conventional nomenclature is "God the Father" and Jesus "Son, Son of God, Word, Word of Life, Lord" and only "God on the privso you also state why and when he is God, i.e. because of the Father and when seated at his right hand - i.e. when with God."

Then the only logical conclusion is that you disagree with the author of John.

What implication? I wasn't implying anything.

Well, there was this, "Deut 6:4 constrains you not to invent multiple gods and that circumscribes the possibilities narrowly."

More recently, you said this,

You must maintain consistency throughout the whole epistle. You can't suddenly introduce a radical change in nomenclature because you feel that some grammatical antecedent should be the "nearest." In fact your "rule" breaks down anyway in 1 John 5:20 (see (a) immediately above).

which implies that I haven't been consistent throughout the epistle, that I have made a change in "nomenclature, and that I proposed a "rule." It may just be that you mean these things broadly but you are aiming them unintentionally at me.

 

[John Milton]

Your biblical Koine is just weak.

Don't make me laugh. Why don't you tell me where you were hiding when Gryllus was putting up weekly koine papyri fragments to translate? You didn't participate because you knew you'd expose yourself. You couldn't have translated a single one of them if your eternal salvation depended upon it. Your Greek is nonexistent, and everyone who is able to read it knows it.

 

[guest1]

Don't make me laugh. Why don't you tell me where you were hiding when Gryllus was putting up weekly koine papyri fragments to translate? You didn't participate because you knew you'd expose yourself. You couldn't have translated a single one of them if your eternal salvation depended upon it. Your Greek is nonexistent, and everyone who is able to read it knows it.

Exactly Jason had his number the first couple of days on the old forum and exposed him. And was caught doing his cut n paste jobs from the internet acting like it was his own work . A complete fraud .

 

[John Milton]

Exactly Jason had his number the first couple of days on the old forum and exposed him. And was caught doing his cut n paste jobs from the internet acting like it was his own work . A complete fraud .

Even his remarks like referring to Attic Greek versus Koine show how little he knows. If a person has even a decent command of Attic Greek, he or she has a good command of Koine. Even a quick google search should tell him that.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Don't make me laugh. Why don't you tell me where you were hiding when Gryllus was putting up weekly koine papyri fragments to translate? You didn't participate because you knew you'd expose yourself. You couldn't have translated a single one of them if your eternal salvation depended upon it. Your Greek is nonexistent, and everyone who is able to read it knows it.

Your biblical koine is just weak. We just saw another example of how bad it is:

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ,
and we are in the truth/true one [Same subject "we."]

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
in his son Jesus Christ. [The parallelism of this phrase the previous statement (ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ) identifies Jesus with the truth/true one. We are in the truth/true one, in his son Jesus Christ.]

That would have been true had there not been the pronoun αὐτοῦ . But with the pronoun your reading is impossible. τὸν ἀληθινόν is the Father. How could anyone whose koine was any good have possibly missed that ?

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

 

[John Milton]

Your biblical koine is just weak. We just saw another example of how bad it is:
That would have been true had there not been the pronoun αὐτοῦ . But with the pronoun your reading is impossible. τὸν ἀληθινόν is the Father. How could anyone whose koine was any good have possibly missed that ?

εἴ γε βούλῃ ὑβρίζειν ἐμέ, ἐν ἑλληνιστὶ ποιοῦ. τότε δὲ εὑρήσομεν τὸ στόμα σου ἐξαίφνης συγκλεισθέν.

 

[John Milton]

Post 166

I hadn't thought about how the beginning of the book, which claims to be an account of the one previously described but not named (I John 1:3a "ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν"), is fittingly and conclusively revealed at the end of the book (ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.). That's a good observation.

 

[John Milton]

Your biblical koine is just weak. We just saw another example of how bad it is:

That would have been true had there not been the pronoun αὐτοῦ . But with the pronoun your reading is impossible. τὸν ἀληθινόν is the Father. How could anyone whose koine was any good have possibly missed that ?

οὐκ εἶπον ὅτι τὸ στόμα σου συγκλεισθήσεται, RJM;

εἴ γε βούλῃ ὑβρίζειν ἐμέ, ἐν ἑλληνιστὶ ποιοῦ. τότε δὲ εὑρήσομεν τὸ στόμα σου ἐξαίφνης συγκλεισθέν.

 

[froggy]

What points are you referring to? I'll be late in my response, but I will respond. Dinner calls.

A man has got to eat before going into battle

 

[John Milton]

A man has got to eat before going into battle

Nothing so serious as that! It was just dinner time. A man would have a real battle if he chose not come to eat when his wife asks him to.

 

[froggy]

Nothing so serious as that! It was just dinner time. A man would have a real battle if he chose not come to eat when his wife asks him to.

Never tried that! Not going to anytime soon.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I agree as your point about order. In fact both subject and predicate nominative can precede the copula in Greek.

But mark this special context. In Jn 1:1 the KJV translates every single word in the order that it appears in the Greek except for θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." Thus Ἐν ἀρχῇ in John 1:1 has no article and yet is made the subject, and "ὁ Λόγος" is the predicate. Why should not "ὁ Λόγος" be the predicate in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος?

This is curious. And, if θεὸς is not qualitative or adjectival in any other verse, that would support the contention that θεὸς is the subject. Because what can be excluded contextually is ellipsis of the definite article, because otherwise there would be created an ambiguity by its unnecessary removal, and we know it can't translate to "a god" because there is only one God.

Why you say the article for θεος at J 1:1c was missing due to ellipsis. I'm not aware of any Greek grammar, Biblical or Classical that gives this as a reason for the lack of an article.

The reason for an article is to show identity. But this is missing at 1:1c. "Ellipsis" for this appears to be an innovation by you.

Is this the only example of ellipsis of the article in the NT? It appears to me it is and also in any other Greek. So I am quite skeptical.

 

[cjab]

It could be definite; it could be indefinite.

Ok.

The only people who are in danger of inventing doctrine are those who affirm more than what the text says. Many are guilty of that; as far as I know, I'm not one of them. I'm certainly not on this matter.

I made a mistake earlier. The translation was good, but the explanation was not. I wrongly associated τὸν ἀληθινόν with Jesus instead of God, and carried that mistake throughout. I amended my remarks in post #180.

However, what is at issue is how to understand οὗτός. For it the nearest referent is Jesus, not God but there are good arguments for either God or Jesus.

I don't follow you. The word is called God in John 1:1. Jesus is identified as the word, therefore Jesus is called God. In John 1:18 Jesus is called the God in the bosom of God. Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28, a verse that cannot be interpreted in any plausible way that does not have Thomas calling Jesus God. The entire gospel refers to Jesus as God.

In John 1:18 the correct English translation is "only begotten of God" by analogy with τὸν μονογενῆ in Heb 11:17, which translates to "only begotten of him [i.e. Abraham]" although "only begotten" is only an approximate translation, meaning either 'pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind' or 'pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.'

The translation "only begotten God" is wrong, even is that is what it simplistically seems to denote.

All I see from John is that the Word is God with no article, but the Father is God by use of the article, which I take to infer hierarchy. Moreover the "Word is God only when the Word is with God" (Jn 1:1), again inferring hierarchy. I see a hierarchy echoed in numberous other versus and in other ways, e.g. 1 Cor 11:3, and God being identified with the Father by 3 x apostles, Jude and JC, and JC acknowledging the Father as greater than himself. In fact the whole of John is a testament to the subordination of the Son to the Father. Only in this context is the Son God.

So I disagree that the entire gospel refers to Jesus as God in the same way as it refers to the Father as God. There is an obvious distinction made everywhere in the words used, including Jesus being the "Son of God." However I don't doubt the Word is clearly inferred to be in the μορφῇ of God.

I wish you would stop accusing me of things I'm not doing. It's beginning to annoy me. I didn't change "nomenclature" (whatever you mean by that), and I have said that it is not an absolute rule. However, it is far more likely that a pronoun will refer to its closest possible antecedent than to one that is more remote. This "rule" as you have called it does "break down," even in I John, but this does not happen as frequently.

It is clear to me that ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν = οὗτός = ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος = θεός (the Father of the Son of God).

In short I see nothing wrong with attributing eternal life to the Father. I'm not clear why there is so much contention about this. I suspect it comes from creedal Trinitarians keen to promote their trinitarian "God the Son" to the exclusion of the biblically conventional God the Father.

Ah, breaking out the "no true Scotsman." Most translations will leave it ambiguous as I did in my own translation above.

Ah, that makes more sense.

Yes. But we also have Jesus called God repeated and credited with tasks that only God can do. Why are you choosing to ignore those facts in favor of the others?

The work of the Son is to reveal the Father. It doesn't make the Son greater than the Father. The theme of John is that the Son reveals the Father who is true God. Jesus is not "called God repeatedly" but very occasionally, and even if he had been called it repeatedly, it wouldn't have detracted from this important point. The Son came not to exalt himself but reveal the one who sent him. E.g. "Why do you call me good? No-one is good except God alone." Luke 18:19 etc.

I don't disagree. However, that's not what you said, and it's not what I was responding to.

Certainly not to a Jew! (Sorry, I couldn't help it.)

I'm even more confused by your remarks now. You just mentioned the Holy Spirit and then forget about him immediately. Then you seem to think "unseen/invisible" means "hidden." The Father constantly reveals the attributes that can be known about God by what he has created per Paul in Romans 1:19-20.

Invisible implies "hidden" objectively. I agree it doesn't imply a subjective intention to hide. The Father reveals his attributes in what had been created and more fully in the Son, and also to us in the indwelling Holy Spirit, but he never reveals himself directly because he is Spirit (Jn 4:24) and lives in "unapproachable light" (1 Timothy 6:16).

Speculation. But one thing is for sure: he called Jesus God.

It's not ignoring God to acknowledge that his word calls Jesus God repeatedly. Beside, I don't know of any Christian who ignores God the Father for Jesus.

As I see it, the term "God the Son" is a tresspass on the authority and supremacy of the Father and anyway unscriptural.

It also reflects a ba'al/pagan way of thinking. If you study paganism, it involves a process of constantly evolving gods being legitimized by prior "Father gods/goddesses" who then fade into the background and become replaced by the new emanation/son/ba'al. In Trinitarianism, the only role of God the Father seems to be the begetter of the Son, and who then becomes effectively redundant. This is not Christianity.

In Christianity we Jesus the Saviour who brings the Father's salvation and his eternal life. Not that Jesus isn't in the form of God, but he made it clear that all his power and his words came from the Father and that he only did what he saw the Father do.

Then the only logical conclusion is that you disagree with the author of John.

Well, there was this, "Deut 6:4 constrains you not to invent multiple gods and that circumscribes the possibilities narrowly."

More recently, you said this, which implies that I haven't been consistent throughout the epistle, that I have made a change in "nomenclature, and that I proposed a "rule." It may just be that you mean these things broadly but you are aiming them unintentionally at me.

I couldn't understand your interpretation of 1 John 5:20. I still can't. I don't disagree with the author of John or 1 John in any respect.

 

[cjab]

Why you say the article for θεος at J 1:1c was missing due to ellipsis. I'm not aware of any Greek grammar, Biblical or Classical that gives this as a reason for the lack of an article.

The reason for an article is to show identity. But this is missing at 1:1c. "Ellipsis" for this appears to be an innovation by you.

Is this the only example of ellipsis of the article in the NT? It appears to me it is and also in any other Greek. So I am quite skeptical.

Yes, I believe I was replying to another poster talking about ellipsis of the article in Jn 1:1. And I was disagreeing with him. I said "Because what can be excluded contextually is ellipsis."

So I'm agreeing with you that there is no ellipsis but not necessarily for the same reasons. Thank's for affirming my POV. I think you misread my post.