Are you saying Jesus and the NT are generally false?
You fail to distinguish between theos used as a title (with the definite article and otherwise contextually and gammatically unqualified) and theos used as a noun (with or without the article). As a mere
noun (not as a title - as you wrongly suggested) theos can be applied to anything serving as an idol god, or with God-like properties (i.e. the Word Jn 1:1, the prophets Jn 10:34-36 or even the risen Christ Jn 20:28) but as a
title (unqualified - definite article unless the focus is on the power/wisdom of God), theos is restricted to the Father.
But, it is valid here, unless you don't know that I was referring to what you wrote.
cjab said:
You quarreled with "the word is God, understand?"
It is never valid to deny something without offering an alternative version of truth. You cannot just deny "The Word was God."
It is not an assertion it is a fact. I don't have to prove scholarly credentials to maintain anything. The scripture does not say "the Word is God"
Scripture says: Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (God was the Word) where the emphasis is on God, but in English this is not valid as it doesn't reflect the anarthrous-predicate-non-titular-noun usage of Θεὸς. Hence it is best translated as "The Word was God" annotated by the focus being on the power/wisdom of God with respect to creation).
Again, what is your grammatical/lexical objection?
It is not my problem that you don't take yourself here.
But you agree that Jesus is the Word and you are supporting the Word is God.
Jesus and the Word are properly names/titles that reflect different jurisdictions. Jesus the man had limited God-like properties. The Word although the same "person" / identity as Jesus has much enchanced God-like properties - see Revelation 1 and John 17:5 etc.
How is it irrelevant that Jesus said he is the son of God? You will not respond because you don't have a response.
The "son" is a human being. The Word is not a human being. You can't advance the Word in heaven as having specifically human/flesh attributes when there is nothing to suggest it in Jn 1:1ff.
Yes, it is. Do you not agree that Jesus is the Word?
The Logos "became" Jesus. There was a transposition. As an identity statement, it is true.
Do you not agree that the same Jesus is the son of God? Do you not agree that God is the father of Jesus? If you believe those things and still believe Jesus was God at some point then you must also agree that Jesus was his own father.
Your logic is flawed because the Word is a title for what is in heaven but Jesus a name for what existed on earth. There was a kenosis. The Word was stripped of its heavenly God-like attributes but not its identity nor such God-like attributes as were consistent with being in the earth's jurisdiction (which reflect the identity of Word). This is why Jesus was a human being.
I don't have to give anything sir. Based on the information saying Jesus is the son of God I cannot conclude thatJesus was somehow his own father.
Straw man.
Is there another Jesus? Was not the Word made flesh?
"made" being the operative word, and where "God" is not titular but used as a mere noun in Jn 1:1c.
Are you trying to say that Jesus did not exist as a man in the beginning? Don't be afraid to say it that way. But the nonsense about Jesus the man implies another Jesus who is not a man.
"The beginning" refers to the beginning of creation (cf. Gen 1:1). Failure to recognize the parallel between Gen 1:1 and Jn 1:1 is eisegesis.
No, it does not. But it does say the Word was made flesh ...
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Emphasis is on "Word was made flesh".
I never mentioned adoptionism.
It's implied in everything you say.
I am not sure what you maintain hence the reason for the discussion. If you maintain that Jesus is the logos/word made flesh then Jesus was not God
Heaven is not earth (they are even distinguished in the Lord's prayer).
Was Jesus ever called "the Logos" on earth? No. On earth he is properly denoted as the Son of God, in heaven he is properly denoted as the Logos. However we learn that even in heaven, the Logos
now bears the name Jesus.
The ascended Son is denoted as in heaven, and the Logos as made flesh. Recognition must always be given to the fundamentally different jurisdictions that these titles relate to.
To say "Jesus is not God" is strictly to make a statement about Jesus the man to the exclusion of the risen Jesus (cf. Jn 1:1c). I suspect this is why The words God and Jesus are not associated with each other. To make such an association is very confusing because it sows endless jurisdictional confusion. So now: Jesus is Lord, the Father is God, is surely the NT convention (excluding some noteworthy idiosyncrasies as James 3:9 in some manuscripts).
You are justifying yourself, that does not count. If you want to support grammar that is up to you. God / Theos refers to any Supernatural being in Greek of which there are many. There is no special title set aside for YHWH in the Greek language.
You incorrect. The New Testament is not like pagan literature. There is no titular "God" in pagan literature (unless it is Zeus) I would conjecture. However in the NT and in the LXX there is a titular God - the Father/YHWH.
And there it is...the translators you support translated Elohim as God. Why are you not reading Jn 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was king? In the OT YHWH was referred to as Elohim but his name is YHWH
Because the Word is in heaven, and "king" relates only to the jurisdiction of the earth. This is why Jesus is "King of the Jews" but not "[the] God of the Jews."
You are not interested because Theos is also used to refer to YHWH.
Of course theos refers to YHWH. Titular theos is YHWH.
How is it irrelevant when Theos is used to refer to YHWH and the devil in the NT?
As I have said above, theos can function as a noun and as a title. As a noun, suitably qualified, it is contextually applicable to false gods. As a title, it denotes the Father alone. As a title, theos commonly carries the article, but there are well documented grammatical exceptions, and some noteworthy contextual exceptions e.g. where the power/wisdom of the Father is being prioritized over the person of the Father (e.g. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" - 2 Corinthians 5:19).
Nonsense Jesus is the Word made flesh. It is one argument.
There is no difference. Was the Word made flesh?
I recommend that you pray that God gives you understanding. You are trusting your own understanding...
I find your arguments deeply flawed. As I have said, you need to learn some Greek in order to progress. There is only so far that you can go in English. To deny that the Word was God is an excommunicable offence in most Christian circles; and you have not provided any other translation, or a better translation.