Does God have eyes?

cjab

Well-known member
John thinks they are...
1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Your point is not to point in the light of Jn 1:14., and Phil 2:6.7 and all those passages which say Jesus sat down at the right hand of the power of God, which shows a clear and radical transposition as between heaven and earth.

That is rubbish...Jesus is not my defacto "God"...His father is My God, the only true God. Jesus is my brother according to him.
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So he is not your Lord, because whereever it is written "Lord" of Jesus, it means one delegated with soverign powers.

God never called me or anyone to be a Christian.
What are you doing on this forum then? It is clear to me that most churches would have no option but to excommunicate you.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Who can doubt that you are an A* heresiarch?
How so? I support everything I say with the scripture
You defame The Logos by alleging he was not God
You affirmed that the logos is Jesus and Jesus is not God.
cjab said:
You keep on attributing to me false positions that I don't hold in order to rebut them, and you talk nonsense at the same time.

The title of the Logos is.................."the Logos".
I conceded the Logos ...............became Jesus.
cjab said:
God does not have a God, and Jesus is not God in NT apostolic doctrine.


You defame the apostle John by alleging he wasn't skilled in Greek and wrote erroneously.
John was a fisherman...there is no evidence to show he was or was not a Greek scholar...If you think he was please bring your vidence
Matthew 4:21
And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
You defame me as a polytheist and unbeliever for crediting "The Word was God."
You affirmed there is only one God the father
And you have the gall to pretend that you are the fount of all wisdom when you're too lazy to learn Greek?
I never claimed any such thing. and learning Greek is not a qualification for wisdom, neither is not learning Greek a qualification for laziness.
There has been a fair amount of talk in other threads of narcissists and narcissistic traits on this board. Such is your world.
More Adhom
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Your point is not to point in the light of Jn 1:14., and Phil 2:6.7 and all those passages which say Jesus sat down at the right hand of the power of God, which shows a clear and radical transposition as between heaven and earth.
John said they handled the Word of life, referring to Jesus. Your babbling does not address that.
So he is not your Lord, because whereever it is written "Lord" of Jesus, it means one delegated with soverign powers.
Therefore Jesus has a Lord...
What are you doing on this forum then?
This is a bible discussion forum. I am discussing the bible.
It is clear to me that most churches would have no option but to excommunicate you.
The church of God has those called to be saints...
1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Where does it say you are called to be a Christian? Are the mockers of Antioch your God? They are the ones who call you Christian
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Both Greenlee and Moule directly agree with me, as does Caragounis, who directly equates "o theos" with the Father. (See A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1 by Caragounis and Van Der Watt).

Observation on p.117

"Greenlee [121] expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".
You omitted this, "Note: In the few New Testament Instances in which θεός refers to "a god," this special rule does not apply." This alone is enough to nullify the rule you would impose. It means you have to prove that "o theos" is a reference to God, you can't just assume it.

(Also, for John 20:28 he has the passage as a nominative for vocative. It can safely be assumed that he took this as an address to Jesus since that is the person addressed in Thomas's remarks.) You misrepresent your sources, the remarks quoted here aren't in defense of your position.
Moule [122] advocated the same position: "It is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

[121] Greenlee, Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39.
[122] Moule. Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76. 115-116.
Again you misrepresent your source. See his remarks on specific passages.
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 7.46.01 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 7.45.26 AM.png
None of these author's justify your specific position. You can't just assume that "o theos" is a reference to the Father according to the sources you quote.
p120 (Caragounis)

The article ό, ή, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing
substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being
general to particular and from being indefinite to definite.
.
.
The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject.
.
.
Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'43. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'.

When John wrote και Θεός ην ό Λόγος, he simply meant "and God
was the Word". This, expressed according to the English idiom, becomes:
"and the Word was God", although the emphasis of the original on Θεός
is gone. This is the best we can do in English, which, as has already been
hinted at, is not an adequate translation of the original. But the reason for
this, as we have seen above, is due to the fact that the uses of the Greek
article do not coincide with those of the English article.

p.138

The three clauses are beautifully structured. In the first clause John
asserts the eternity of the Word. In the second clause he asserts the relationship
of the Word to God (= the Father) and in the third clause he
asserts the fact that the Word was God.

The Word cannot be identified with the Θεός of Jn 1,1b, because in his Gospel John
intends to distinguish Θεός (= the Father) from Λόγος (the Son)
You are forgetting that Caragounis is discussing John 1 where "o theos" isn't used to refer to "the word". He is not denying that "o theos" can be used to refer to something other than "the Father" this is clear from the entirety of his remarks. He would rather say that "o theos" applied to Jesus would not be an assertion that he is "the Father" as you assert or must be a reference to "the Father". This is clear from this remark:
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 7.58.06 AM.png
You do not have the ability to correctly understand and represent your sources.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You omitted this, "Note: In the few New Testament Instances in which θεός refers to "a god," this special rule does not apply." This alone is enough to nullify the rule you would impose. It means you have to prove that "o theos" is a reference to God, you can't just assume it.
Contextual distinctions make it obvious where a god is being alluded to.

(Also, for John 20:28 he has the passage as a nominative for vocative. It can safely be assumed that he took this as an address to Jesus since that is the person addressed in Thomas's remarks.) You misrepresent your sources, the remarks quoted here aren't in defense of your position.

Again you misrepresent your source. See his remarks on specific passages.
View attachment 3604
View attachment 3605
None of these author's justify your specific position. You can't just assume that "o theos" is a reference to the Father according to the sources you quote.

You are forgetting that Caragounis is discussing John 1 where "o theos" isn't used to refer to "the word". He is not denying that "o theos" can be used to refer to something other than "the Father" this is clear from the entirety of his remarks. He would rather say that "o theos" applied to Jesus would not be an assertion that he is "the Father" as you assert or must be a reference to "the Father". This is clear from this remark:
View attachment 3606
You do not have the ability to correctly understand and represent your sources.
I have no idea what source you're referring to. I'm alluding to "A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1 by Caragounis and Van Der Watt".
 

cjab

Well-known member
John said they handled the Word of life, referring to Jesus. Your babbling does not address that.

Therefore Jesus has a Lord...

This is a bible discussion forum. I am discussing the bible.
No, you're not. You're engaging your penchant for narcissism. The bible says "The Word is God" which you repudate with anathemas.
The church of God has those called to be saints...
1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Where does it say you are called to be a Christian? Are the mockers of Antioch your God? They are the ones who call you Christian
The distinction between Christian and Saint in the modern age is non-existent.
 

cjab

Well-known member
How so? I support everything I say with the scripture
Nonsense. You repudiate scripture.

You affirmed that the logos is Jesus and Jesus is not God.
cjab said:
You keep on attributing to me false positions that I don't hold in order to rebut them, and you talk nonsense at the same time.

The title of the Logos is.................."the Logos".
I conceded the Logos ...............became Jesus.
I used "became". You used the word "is". They are different words.


John was a fisherman...
Was he a fisherman when he wrote the gospel of John, 50 years later?

there is no evidence to show he was or was not a Greek scholar...If you think he was please bring your vidence
The gospel and epistles of John.

Matthew 4:21
And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

You affirmed there is only one God the father
Their is only God, entitled the "Father." But equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus.

I never claimed any such thing. and learning Greek is not a qualification for wisdom, neither is not learning Greek a qualification for laziness.

More Adhom
So we rest secure in the knowledge that you agree that you are not the fount of all wisdom. That much is a relief.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
That's debatable but I'm not interested in doing that.
That's fair enough. My point was that the only references in the passage that could constitute a plurality of entities must include the Spirit of God as distinct from God. I don't believe that assessment is debatable. Any other position requires speculation of entities outside the scope of the passage. However, I'm not claiming that this is the only possible interpretation of the passage.
We are made in God's image.

How can God be a person (s) if he is "an inherently undefined and abstract concept"? Do you pray to an abstract concept? Are you a classical theist?
Sorry for the confusion. I meant the specific word "God" in our usage pertains to "an inherently undefined and abstract concept" and will have a different meaning from person to person, even from Christian to Christian. I think there are attributes that we can definitely ascribe to God "light, love, devotion, etc, but as far as God's constitution goes he remains abstract in our thinking. We can't comprehend of his form or define all the ways that we are in his image.
In the context of 2 Corinthians 5, I would say that "the Lord" is Jesus.
I glossed over the scripture reference, my apologies. You are correct.
But you, the person you are, is the same without a physical body, correct?
Correct.
Do you think the thief on the cross who died alongside Jesus recognized Jesus, that is the spirit of Jesus, when they both arrived in paradise? Luke 23:42-43
I do.
From what you've written to Cjab, do you believe that Jesus will be different after his resurrection? It seems like you make a clear distinction between Jesus in human form and his form he had prior to the incarnation and maybe even after his resurrection?
I believe that Jesus (in form) was different before his incarnation and after his resurrection than he was during his incarnation (excluding the transfiguration). I'm unsure whether he was the same after his resurrection as he was before his incarnation, though I doubt that he was. I'm also unsure if the form that Jesus assumed after his resurrection is the same one that he will have at the very end.
Rev. 22:3-4 "No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads."
I John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Contextual distinctions make it obvious where a god is being alluded to.


I have no idea what source you're referring to. I'm alluding to "A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1 by Caragounis and Van Der Watt".
You have pulled those remarks out of context and are saying that they support your claim that "o theos" is always a reference to the Father. I've been saying all along that there are no scholars who support that claim. Neither what you cited from the paper nor the individuals quoted in that paper support your assertion as I have shown. The first quote was from Greenlee's grammar which was cited, the second from Moule's Idioms which was cited, and the last from the paper itself. I shouldn't be surprised that what should've been evident to you wasn't evident to you. And this goes without mentioning the fact that the quote you gave was actually from Watt and not Caragounis.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You have pulled those remarks out of context and are saying that they support your claim that "o theos" is always a reference to the Father.
I have not said "always". I have long stressed that the unqualified context must be the Christian God. If you introduce a qualifier, than theos becomes restricted to a noun usage.

I've been saying all along that there are no scholars who support that claim.
That is plainly wrong. I quoted three scholars that see o theos as an allusion to the Father in Jn 1:1n.

Caragounis says "In the second clause (Jn 1:1b) he asserts the relationship of the Word to God (= the Father)

Caragounis admits that in the 19th century, this use of the article to refer to a particular person wasn't so clearly identified.

So I do agree that not all scholars support my position, but there are clearly those that do.

Neither what you cited from the paper nor the individuals quoted in that paper support your assertion as I have shown. The first quote was from Greenlee's grammar which was cited, the second from Moule's Idioms which was cited, and the last from the paper itself. I shouldn't be surprised that what should've been evident to you wasn't evident to you. And this goes without mentioning the fact that the quote you gave was actually from Watt and not Caragounis.
John 20:28 is irrelevant as the context is qualified. "God of me" is such a qualification that makes your argument irrelevant. It is plainly not referring directly to the Father, and yet is inferring Jesus as having come from the Father.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I have not said "always". I have long stressed that the unqualified context must be the Christian God. If you introduce a qualifier, than theos becomes restricted to a noun usage.
An "unqualified" context is impossible. It is the context of the reference that determines the usage, not the use or disuse of an article.
That is plainly wrong. I quoted three scholars that see o theos as an allusion to the Father in Jn 1:1n.
This does not pertain to what I wrote. Your remark here is "plainly wrong," because it is irrelevant.
Caragounis says "In the second clause (Jn 1:1b) he asserts the relationship of the Word to God (= the Father)
As I said, he is talking specifically about John 1. You can't stretch that statement to a general context and expect it to hold as you have done.
Caragounis admits that in the 19th century, this use of the article to refer to a particular person wasn't so clearly identified.

So I do agree that not all scholars support my position, but there are clearly those that do.
As I have said, no scholar supports your position. You cannot produce a single one.
John 20:28 is irrelevant as the context is qualified. "God of me" is such a qualification that makes your argument irrelevant. It is plainly not referring directly to the Father, and yet is inferring Jesus as having come from the Father.
So what? Philippians 3:19 is unqualified and it doesn't refer to "the Father". You are insisting upon a rule that has no basis in usage. You are, apparently, doing so to avoid the ambiguity of passages involving the Granville Sharp rule and to avoid the fact that "o theos" is used of Jesus. The truth of the matter is that what "o theos" refers to is a matter of context. Your retooling of your remarks to address obvious errors is not going to change this fact.

...then Sharp's rule has no Trinitarian application in the NT, as ό Θεός is a proper name.

Sharp's rule contains an inbuilt exception for proper names. In places like 2 Peter 1:2, John 1:1b, ό Θεός is directly contrasted with Jesus and the Word, and clearly denotes the one whom Jesus addressed as Father.
...How then can a rule of grammar be allowed to subvert this essential truth? The Trinitarian application of Sharp's rule to ό Θεός is predicated on assuming that ό Θεός isn't the designate name for God. As such, Trinitarians merely assume what they endeavour to prove by grammar, and so end up proving nothing,

ό Θεός is not related to any other god or idol in the NT but the Father of Jesus alone.
 

cjab

Well-known member
An "unqualified" context is impossible. It is the context of the reference that determines the usage, not the use or disuse of an article.
Alright, an unlimited context, if you prefer. God is defined without any limitations, express or implied. e.g. Jn 1:1b, Jn 4:24.

This does not pertain to what I wrote. Your remark here is "plainly wrong," because it is irrelevant.

As I said, he is talking specifically about John 1. You can't stretch that statement to a general context and expect it to hold as you have done.
It is plain that o theos refers to the Father in every unlimited context.

As I have said, no scholar supports your position. You cannot produce a single one.
"Greenlee [121] expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".


Moule [122] advocated the same position: "It is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

Both of these scholars identify the person of God as the Father, further identified as theos with the article. There is no attempt to specify a particular rule for Jn 1:1. Equally Caragounis.

You are talking nonsense.

So what? Philippians 3:19 is unqualified and it doesn't refer to "the Father".
There is an obvious qualifier ὧν (of whom). So the statement about God is qualified in the same sense as in Jn 20:28, i.e. it is being related to an individual. So the noun sense is only sense of ὁ θεὸς.

You are insisting upon a rule that has no basis in usage.
Obviously it does. Find me one place where Christ refers to <article><theos> which is not used of his father, or in the Old Testament Jn 10:34-36 sense.

You are, apparently, doing so to avoid the ambiguity of passages involving the Granville Sharp rule and to avoid the fact that "o theos" is used of Jesus. The truth of the matter is that what "o theos" refers to is a matter of context. Your retooling of your remarks to address obvious errors is not going to change this fact.
The granville sharp rule re theos is bunkum, just because unqualified "o theos" is an appellative of the Father.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
No, you're not. You're engaging your penchant for narcissism. The bible says "The Word is God" which you repudate with anathemas.
This is what we are discussing... And No, it does not say the Word is God...It says the Word was God. And it also says the Word was with God...Please explain who was with God...
The distinction between Christian and Saint in the modern age is non-existent.
To you, it is non-existent. You have to show where God changed it to be non-existent in the scripture. As far as the scripture teaches a Christian is what the people of Antioch mockingly called believers and a saint is how the apostles addressed believers. You seem to prefer to be mocked.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Alright, an unlimited context, if you prefer. God is defined without any limitations, express or implied. e.g. Jn 1:1b, Jn 4:24.


It is plain that o theos refers to the Father in every unlimited context.
There is no such thing as an "unlimited context".
"Greenlee [121] expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".


Moule [122] advocated the same position: "It is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

Both of these scholars identify the person of God as the Father, further identified as theos with the article. There is no attempt to specify a particular rule for Jn 1:1. Equally Caragounis.

You are talking nonsense.
You are the one who continues to spout nonsense for there is nothing here to support your claim that "o theos" is a defacto reference to the Father as I explained to you above.
There is an obvious qualifier ὧν (of whom). The statement about God is qualified in the same sense as Jn 20:28, i.e. it is being related to an individual. So the noun sense is only sense of ὁ θεὸς.
To even allow that there is a "noun sense" shows that you know your rule isn't a rule.
Obviously it does. Find me one place where Christ refers to <article><theos> which is not used of his father, or in the Old Testament Jn 10:34-36 sense.
To do so would be to participate in your flawed logic. It does not matter whether such an example exists or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
The granville sharp rule re theos is bunkum, just because unqualified "o theos" is an appellative of the Father.
It is "bunkum," but not for the reason you give here. "'o theos' is an appellative of the Father," but it is not an exclusive or a default reference to "the Father." You hold this belief to avoid having to prove what you assert, and you must prove the reference because each reference is dependent upon context.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Nonsense. You repudiate scripture.
I repudiate your understanding of the scripture.
I used "became". You used the word "is". They are different words.
The Logos became Jesus therefore he is now Jesus... You seem to be saying the Logos became Jesus but the Logos is not Jesus.
Was he a fisherman when he wrote the gospel of John, 50 years later?
Are you saying that John was not a fisherman? Please bring your evidence that he was a Greek scholar.
The gospel and epistles of John.
That is not evidence of anything...people back then used scribes to write for them
Their is only God, entitled the "Father." But equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus.
You are making up stuff...where does the scripture say "equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus"?
So we rest secure in the knowledge that you agree that you are not the fount of all wisdom.
Only God is the source of all wisdom.
That much is a relief.
How so? I never made that claim. Your discomfort was based on your ignorance.
 

cjab

Well-known member
There is no such thing as an "unlimited context".

You are the one who continues to spout nonsense for there is nothing here to support your claim that "o theos" is a defacto reference to the Father as I explained to you above.

To even allow that there is a "noun sense" shows that you know your rule isn't a rule.

To do so would be to participate in your flawed logic. It does not matter whether such an example exists or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

It is "bunkum," but not for the reason you give here. "'o theos' is an appellative of the Father," but it is not an exclusive or a default reference to "the Father." You hold this belief to avoid having to prove what you assert, and you must prove the reference because each reference is dependent upon context.
You can't construct a correct theology on a stream of abuse and denials (both of which seem to inspire you).

Which is why I have to rate you as unclassified in theology. Frankly I've never learnt anything from you, and I guess I never will.

And your particular brand of BS is ignore the very words of Christ about God his Father, which I do not. After all, Christ came to reveal God.

So on that note, I think it's best to end this digression which once again is leading you to ever-increasing degrees of incoherence.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
That's fair enough. My point was that the only references in the passage that could constitute a plurality of entities must include the Spirit of God as distinct from God. I don't believe that assessment is debatable. Any other position requires speculation of entities outside the scope of the passage. However, I'm not claiming that this is the only possible interpretation of the passage.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant the specific word "God" in our usage pertains to "an inherently undefined and abstract concept" and will have a different meaning from person to person, even from Christian to Christian. I think there are attributes that we can definitely ascribe to God "light, love, devotion, etc, but as far as God's constitution goes he remains abstract in our thinking. We can't comprehend of his form or define all the ways that we are in his image.

I glossed over the scripture reference, my apologies. You are correct.

Correct.

I do.

I believe that Jesus (in form) was different before his incarnation and after his resurrection than he was during his incarnation (excluding the transfiguration). I'm unsure whether he was the same after his resurrection as he was before his incarnation, though I doubt that he was. I'm also unsure if the form that Jesus assumed after his resurrection is the same one that he will have at the very end.
Rev. 22:3-4 "No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads."
I John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."
Thanks for the discussion, JM. May the Lord richly bless you. Eph 1:17
 

cjab

Well-known member
I repudiate your understanding of the scripture.
You repudiate the words of scripture (even of Christ), because you say "The Logos is not God."

Such could be construed as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,

The Logos became Jesus therefore he is now Jesus...
Stop playing with words. It is obvious that the ascended Christ repossessed the title of the Logos, but you were referring to Jesus the man as the Logos, which is wrong.


You seem to be saying the Logos became Jesus but the Logos is not Jesus.
The Logos is heavenly, but Jesus is earthly and yet who ascended into heaven. I repeat the Logos concept is one pertaining to deity alone, and as is denoted in Jn 1:1, it is restricted to heaven. The Logos shares the same identity as Jesus, but the Logos denotes more than his identity, rather the complete divine entity clothed with the Father's glory.

So the titular Logos is also akin to an office title. If you get ejected from office, you no longer hold that office title. That is why The Logos became The Son of God: a significant change in title that you eternally confound to indulge your socinian heresy.
Are you saying that John was not a fisherman? Please bring your evidence that he was a Greek scholar.

That is not evidence of anything...people back then used scribes to write for them
Your argument is from paganism. A trade was merely a trade. Paul was a tent-maker, yet also highly educated in Jewish law. Their first jobs inherited from their parents are irrelevant: your point insulting. Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient world.

You are making up stuff...where does the scripture say "equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus"?
John 16:15.

Only God is the source of all wisdom.

How so? I never made that claim. Your discomfort was based on your ignorance.
You act like a know-it-all: you sit in judgment on me and condemn me as an unbeliever and as a polytheist; but when you demonstate doubt in the integrity of the gospels, which were accepted into the canon from the beginning, to advance your points, your indebtedness to some variant of the socinian heresy becomes manifest to all.

Watch out that you're not condemned for being a liar yourself Rev 21:8.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
You can't construct a correct theology on a stream of abuse and denials (both of which seem to inspire you).

Which is why I have to rate you as unclassified in theology. Frankly I've never learnt anything from you, and I guess I never will.

And your particular brand of BS is ignore the very words of Christ about God his Father, which I do not. After all, Christ came to reveal God.

So on that note, I think it's best to end this digression which once again is leading you to ever-increasing degrees of incoherence.
I've not been incoherent; you are simply confused. The things you have falsely asserted here demonstrate it. When you are confronted with evidence you can't contend with, you claim that the person who provided the evidence is "incoherent" and run away. Run away then, cjab.
 
Top