Does God have eyes?

cjab

Well-known member
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.
You have yet to provide evidence. You always run to Jn 20:28, but "o theos" is clearly qualified by being made "the God of me." Phil 3:19 is also qualified by a relative pronoun. These have no relevance to the many places when theos is unqualfied, such as in almost every case of Christ's invocation of theos, but notably excepting Jn 10:34-36. You say what Christ says is irrelevant. There is thus no point in carrying on a conversation with you, because you can't relate to my argument, or similar arguments by other scholars, which you falsely allege are confined to Jn 1:1.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
You repudiate the words of scripture (even of Christ), because you say "The Logos is not God."
because I don't have two Gods
Such could be construed as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,
misconstrued
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.
It is the man Jesus who ascended, therefore the Logos is never God. The man Jesus is at the right hand of God. The title Logos does not make him God. If it does then you have two Gods.
The Logos is heavenly, but Jesus is earthly and yet who ascended into heaven.
You just said Logos is a title.
I repeat the Logos concept is one pertaining to deity alone, and as is denoted in Jn 1:1, it is restricted to heaven.
Where does the scripture say that?
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.
You are not making any sense...You said the Logos is a title.
It is obvious that the ascended Christ repossessed the title of the Logos

So the titular Logos is also akin to an office title.
there you go again...
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.
Then when the son/ the Christ repossessed the logos title is he no longer the son /the Christ? That is your logic is it not?
Your argument is from paganism. A trade was merely a trade. Paul was a tent-maker, yet also highly educated in Jewish law.
He was highly educated in Jewish law before he became a tentmaker... Which he counted as dung as I recall.
Their first jobs inherited from their parents are irrelevant: your point insulting. Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient world.
Are you saying that john had another job as a Greek scholar?
John 16:15.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

no mention of ... "equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus"? He said he will show it...You are misrepresenting the scripture to facilitate your nonsense.
You act like a know-it-all:
No, I don't you are assuming that I do. big difference
you sit in judgment on me and condemn me as an unbeliever and as a polytheist;
Your words expose who you are
but when you demonstate doubt in the integrity of the gospels,
the doubt is in the integrity of the translation
which were accepted into the canon from the beginning,to advance your points,
Accepted by whom? The RCC
your indebtedness to some variant of the socinian heresy becomes manifest to all.
That is your opinion, it carries no weight
Watch out that you're not condemned for being a liar yourself Rev 21:8.
You are the one accusing. That does not count.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You have yet to provide evidence.
I have provided more than enough evidence to prove that your position is wrong. Your assertion (for it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for an argument) is based upon the flawed assumption that "o theos" is a default reference to God when it isn't modified by anything else. To "support" this flawed assumption you falsely claim that scholars share your understanding even though it is clear that they do not (they don't even come close to stating the same claim that you have made), and you imagine that non-use of "o theos" to refer to someone other than God in the New Testament demonstrates that it must be a reference to "the Father" which is a logical fallacy. But your position is even worse than that because you concede that "o theos" can be used of other gods thereby proving my claim that the meaning is contextual. In other words, you know that your claim is false, yet you repeat it anyway.

Why do you do this? Most likely to avoid admitting that ambiguous passages such as II Peter 1:2 "χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν." might actually contain a reference to Jesus being God, which should not be a problem for you if you truly accepted that Jesus is called God in the first place.
You always run to Jn 20:28, but "o theos" is clearly qualified by being made "the God of me." Phil 3:19 is also qualified by a relative pronoun. These have no relevance to the many places when theos is unqualfied, such as in almost every case of Christ's invocation of theos, but notably excepting Jn 10:34-36.
My position in no way relies on these passages as I demonstrated for you above. You don't have an argument; you have only empty assertions.
You say what Christ says is irrelevant.
I've never claimed that "what Christ says is irrelevant". This is simply another instance of you making libelous comments about me and my position because of your deficient intelligence and integrity. What I have said repeatedly is that you mistakenly interpret the beginning and ending of John's gospel by the middle.
There is thus no point in carrying on a conversation with you, because you can't relate to my argument, or similar arguments by other scholars,
You don't have an argument, and you don't have support from scholars (which you partially admit even here by saying their actual remarks are only "similar").
which you falsely allege are confined to Jn 1:1.
I only said that Caragounis's remarks were limited in scope to John 1:1, and I correctly pointed out that he would not see "o theos" in John 20:28 as a reference to the Father because he rightly understands the context of the utterance. Greenlee outright admitted that his "rule" was conditional, and Moule said that the use or disuse of the article might be a result of first/second language interference in which case your appeals to the use or disuse of the article on the basis of Greek grammar is irrelevant. You've got nothing. It's time for you to concede and fix your errors.
 

cjab

Well-known member
because I don't have two Gods
Since you won't understand the basics of Greek grammar, it's pointless arguing with you. "Let him who is ignorant be ignorant" 1 Corinthians 14:38.

misconstrued

It is the man Jesus who ascended, therefore the Logos is never God. The man Jesus is at the right hand of God. The title Logos does not make him God. If it does then you have two Gods.
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5, which is why he regained equivalence with God as the Logos of God (Phil 2:6,7 & Rev 19:3)

You just said Logos is a title.
Yes

Where does the scripture say that?
It's deducible from Jn 1:1a. "In the beginning was the Logos."

You are not making any sense...You said the Logos is a title.
The Logos is a title of what was in the beginning and with God. The title is further seen as applied to the ascended Christ in Rev 19:3.

there you go again...

Then when the son/ the Christ repossessed the logos title is he no longer the son /the Christ? That is your logic is it not?
By convention, we refer to the man Jesus when we speak of him. So he is called the Son and the Christ, even though he is ascended. This is very important for a Christian: see John's emphasis on believing that Christ came in the flesh. It is not good believing "in the Logos."

He was highly educated in Jewish law before he became a tentmaker... Which he counted as dung as I recall.
It may have counted for nothing, but as knowledge of the law is important in understanding what is sinful, it helped Paul to become holy.

Are you saying that john had another job as a Greek scholar?
Outside of Israel, They all spoke Greek in those days. If you live in a Greek speaking world, you'll soon pick up the lingo. I think we can trust that John knew the meaning of "theos."

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

no mention of ... "equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus"? He said he will show it...You are misrepresenting the scripture to facilitate your nonsense.
I am not misrepresenting scripture. If you can't understand "All things that the Father hath are mine" + John 17:5, I can't help you. (The verse I quoted was otherwise non-contextual - Jesus talking about the Holy Spirit).

No, I don't you are assuming that I do. big difference

Your words expose who you are

the doubt is in the integrity of the translation

Accepted by whom? The RCC

That is your opinion, it carries no weight

You are the one accusing. That does not count.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Since you won't understand the basics of Greek grammar, it's pointless arguing with you. "Let him who is ignorant be ignorant" 1 Corinthians 14:38.
Your Greek grammar indicates two Gods.
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5,
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Therefore Jesus is the Logos who was with God before the world was. He left his Glory and is praying that his father returns it to him.

which is why he regained equivalence with God as the Logos of God (Phil 2:6,7 & Rev 19:3)
There is no mention of equivalence with God...Jesus is at the right hand of God.
The scripture says God is the head of Jesus.
The way I see it is if God is the head of Jesus and you are saying Jesus is equal to God. Then Jesus as the head of man is equal to man. Since you are saying Jesus is equal to God then man is also equal to God because Jesus is equal to God...
Therefore Logos is the title of Jesus before he was made flesh. So it actually the same person who was with God. Therefore not God himself.

It's deducible from Jn 1:1a. "In the beginning was the Logos."
And the Logos was with God.
The Logos is a title of what was in the beginning and with God.
That would be Jesus... Logos was his title before he was made flesh.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The title is further seen as applied to the ascended Christ in Rev 19:3.
that is what I have been trying to tell all the while...
By convention, we refer to the man Jesus when we speak of him.
Speak for yourself. Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
I refer to Jesus as Jesus before he was flesh. As Jesus when he died and was resurrected and as Jesus seated at the right hand of the father.
So he is called the Son and the Christ, even though he is ascended. This is very important for a Christian: see John's emphasis on believing that Christ came in the flesh. It is not good believing "in the Logos."
He is the same jesus...8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
It may have counted for nothing, but as knowledge of the law is important in understanding what is sinful, it helped Paul to become holy.
One does not have to be a Greek scholar to understand what is sinful. Paul was a greek scholar and was consenting to the killing of Jesus' disciples...It is God who makes us Holy.
Outside of Israel, They all spoke Greek in those days. If you live in a Greek speaking world, you'll soon pick up the lingo. I think we can trust that John knew the meaning of "theos."
Of course, he did. Greek Gods however are different from the Hebrew God. Greek gods can mate with humans and have demi-gods as children. That is what the Greek language will promote. A God that cannot be seen but is responsible for all creation would not be acceptable by Greek standards...So how does a language that supports Greek Gods support the Hebrew God at the same time? They had no words to explain YHWH therefore they used what was available.
I am not misrepresenting scripture.
Of course, you are...You said this...
Their is only God, entitled the "Father." But equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus.
Which is false and not written in the scripture
If you can't understand "All things that the Father hath are mine" + John 17:5, I can't help you.
You can't even help yourself ...here is the quote...
John 16:15
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
(The verse I quoted was otherwise non-contextual - Jesus talking about the Holy Spirit).
So Jesus was saying God was only going to show the disciples the HS?..therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Your Greek grammar indicates two Gods.
So now you pretend to instuct in grammar when you know no Greek? The mark of a false teacher and heresiarch.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Therefore Jesus is the Logos who was with God before the world was. He left his Glory and is praying that his father returns it to him.

with thine own self are the operative words in response to your critique of me "no mention of ... "equally the Father gives of himself to others."

Plainly he does give of himself to others, as he gave his own glory to Christ.

There is no mention of equivalence with God...Jesus is at the right hand of God.
Again you deny scripture Phil 2:6 "who existing in the form of God considered [it] not something to be held on to, to be equivalent with God."

The scripture says God is the head of Jesus.
The way I see it is if God is the head of Jesus and you are saying Jesus is equal to God. Then Jesus as the head of man is equal to man. Since you are saying Jesus is equal to God then man is also equal to God because Jesus is equal to God...

Therefore Logos is the title of Jesus before he was made flesh. So it actually the same person who was with God. Therefore not God himself.
So you learnt something.

And the Logos was with God.

That would be Jesus... Logos was his title before he was made flesh.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

that is what I have been trying to tell all the while...
The name Jesus was not given to the Logos, but to the man. It is the scriptural convention that the names and titles given to the man are projected to the one in heaven.

Speak for yourself. Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
I refer to Jesus as Jesus before he was flesh. As Jesus when he died and was resurrected and as Jesus seated at the right hand of the father.

He is the same jesus...8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
That, of course, is not referring to such attributes as were divested when he became a man. You seem to have a problem that is the direct inverse of Trinitarians: whilst they pretend that Jesus retained all of his divine attributes in the flesh, you pretend that Jesus retained all of his human attributes in heaven and possessed no divine attributes at all.

One does not have to be a Greek scholar to understand what is sinful. Paul was a greek scholar and was consenting to the killing of Jesus' disciples...It is God who makes us Holy.
Your previous comment suggested that knowledge of the law (not not knowledge of the Greek language) was in nowise advantageous to Paul. That much is derisory. Rather mere knowledge of the law itself counts for nothing: only holiness deriving from that knowledge counts. (One can be a serial lawbreaker even with a good knowledge of the law.)

Of course, he did. Greek Gods however are different from the Hebrew God. Greek gods can mate with humans and have demi-gods as children. That is what the Greek language will promote. A God that cannot be seen but is responsible for all creation would not be acceptable by Greek standards...So how does a language that supports Greek Gods support the Hebrew God at the same time? They had no words to explain YHWH therefore they used what was available.
Exactly the same principle applies with YHWH as with theos appearing in the NT in the unqualified sense. Jesus is indivisibly united with his Father is what Jn 1:1 infers. In the NT, theos refering to anyone else but the person of the Father (the noun sense of theos) is always qualified by context or grammar. Again you don't grasp the distinction between noun and title usage. Greek gods are not labelled "the God."

Of course, you are...You said this...

Which is false and not written in the scripture
You err. The Father glorified Christ with himself.


Since you won't acknowledge what scripture says, on that point, I'm concluding.

You can't even help yourself ...here is the quote...
John 16:15
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

So Jesus was saying God was only going to show the disciples the HS?..therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I have provided more than enough evidence to prove that your position is wrong. Your assertion (for it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for an argument) is based upon the flawed assumption that "o theos" is a default reference to God when it isn't modified by anything else.
The meaning of theos is "God" who by Christ is the Father (who is "true God" Jn 17:3). The problem I have is that you seek to deny this.

To "support" this flawed assumption you falsely claim that scholars share your understanding even though it is clear that they do not (they don't even come close to stating the same claim that you have made), and you imagine that non-use of "o theos" to refer to someone other than God in the New Testament demonstrates that it must be a reference to "the Father" which is a logical fallacy.
The obverse of saying that unqualified use of "o theos" relates to the Father is not that "non-use of "o theos" to refer to someone other than God in the New Testament".

Such is a strawman and fanciful imputation on your part. I concur with the scholars whom I have quoted, in respect of what the non-use of the article might infer in respect of relating to God's characteristics rather that directly to the person of God, and equally there are grammatical exceptions as to why the article isn't used in some cases (i.e. genitive use or use with prepositions).

But your position is even worse than that because you concede that "o theos" can be used of other gods thereby proving my claim that the meaning is contextual. In other words, you know that your claim is false, yet you repeat it anyway
You slander me in that (as you know full well) I stress only that the unqualified use of "o theos" relates to the Father.

.

Why do you do this? Most likely to avoid admitting that ambiguous passages such as II Peter 1:2 "χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν." might actually contain a reference to Jesus being God, which should not be a problem for you if you truly accepted that Jesus is called God in the first place.
I really am getting very annoyed with you. You deliberately misrepresent everything I say, and falsify everything I adhere to.

For the final time: I want nothing more to do with you. Please don't reply to any of my posts ever again. There is no profit in dialogue between us.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
The meaning of theos is "God" who by Christ is the Father (who is "true God" Jn 17:3). The problem I have is that you seek to deny this.
I have consistently maintained that both "the Father" and "Jesus" are God which is 100% in harmony with scripture. If you have a "problem" with this, then you problem is with scripture, not me.
The obverse of saying that unqualified use of "o theos" relates to the Father is not that "non-use of "o theos" to refer to someone other than God in the New Testament".

Such is a strawman and fanciful imputation on your part. I concur with the scholars whom I have quoted, in respect of what the non-use of the article might infer in respect of relating to God's characteristics rather that directly to the person of God, and equally there are grammatical exceptions as to why the article isn't used in some cases (i.e. genitive use or use with prepositions).
There's no strawman here, cjab, only another illustration of your poor reading (and writing!) ability. For one thing, you haven't represented my thought accurately. By chopping it in half you entirely missed what I was saying which is that even if "o theos" isn't used for anyone other than God in the New Testament it is not proof that it could not have been used for anything else.

And once again, I will correct your false statements for none of the scholars you cite agree with you. None mention "unqualified theos" at all in a reference to God or otherwise. And the "grammatical exceptions" you must be referring to were objections raised about L1/L2 language interference which raise concerns beyond that of Greek grammar alone. You can continue making the false statement if you wish to, but the fact is that you have no scholarly support.
You slander me in that (as you know full well) I stress only that the unqualified use of "o theos" relates to the Father.
Again, there is no such thing as an "unqualified use". A usage in a narrative must be limited either grammatically or by context. I was giving you credit for correct statements you have made in the past. If you wish to go back on them now in favor of this, I certainly can't stop you.
I really am getting very annoyed with you. You deliberately misrepresent everything I say, and falsify everything I adhere to.
I don't. You just don't understand what I write as is evident in your remarks above.
For the final time: I want nothing more to do with you. Please don't reply to any of my posts ever again. There is no profit in dialogue between us.
As long as you keep making false statements and pretending to know Greek, I'll make no such promises. I really couldn't care less what you want.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
So now you pretend to instuct in grammar when you know no Greek?
Why do you pretend to instruct in grammar when you know no Greek?
The mark of a false teacher and heresiarch.
Do you apply this to yourself as well?
Exactly the same principle applies with YHWH as with theos appearing in the NT in the unqualified sense. Jesus is indivisibly united with his Father is what Jn 1:1 infers. In the NT, theos refering to anyone else but the person of the Father (the noun sense of theos) is always qualified by context or grammar. Again you don't grasp the distinction between noun and title usage. Greek gods are not labelled "the God."
You are foolishly trying to classify pragmatic features as grammar.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
So now you pretend to instuct in grammar when you know no Greek? The mark of a false teacher and heresiarch.
I never instructed you, you are pretending that I am instructing you.
with thine own self are the operative words in response to your critique of me "no mention of ... "equally the Father gives of himself to others."
"with thine own self" does not mean... "equally the Father gives of himself to others."
Plainly he does give of himself to others, as he gave his own glory to Christ.
of himself indicates "some"
Again you deny scripture Phil 2:6 "who existing in the form of God considered [it] not something to be held on to, to be equivalent with God."
So what is the form of God?..
Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Could it be that the writer is trying to say "who existing in God considered [it] not something to be held on to, to be equivalent with God."
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Just to be clear sons come out from their fathers, don't they?
So you learnt something.
So why do you disagree when I say the Logos is not God?
The name Jesus was not given to the Logos, but to the man.
Are you serious?.. You said the Logos is a Title...So what do you mean that the name Jesus was not given to a title? Why would anyone think that? Obviously, the name Jesus was given to the same person who had the title of Logos, ie the logos was made flesh.
It is the scriptural convention that the names and titles given to the man are projected to the one in heaven.
semantics...The one who was the Logos was made flesh=Jesus. Jesus identified himself as being with God before the beginning of the world, therefore identifying himself as having the title Logos.
That, of course, is not referring to such attributes as were divested when he became a man. You seem to have a problem that is the direct inverse of Trinitarians: whilst they pretend that Jesus retained all of his divine attributes in the flesh, you pretend that Jesus retained all of his human attributes in heaven and possessed no divine attributes at all.
No, I never mentioned retaining human attributes or divine attributes, that is your construct... Having divine attributes does not make one God.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Believers are partakers of the divine nature. Is it your contention that believers become Gods because they are partakers of the divine nature?
Your previous comment suggested that knowledge of the law (not not knowledge of the Greek language) was in nowise advantageous to Paul.
You judge...was Paul not killing believers of Jesus with that knowledge of the law?
That much is derisory. Rather mere knowledge of the law itself counts for nothing: only holiness deriving from that knowledge counts. (One can be a serial lawbreaker even with a good knowledge of the law.)
One does not derive holiness from knowledge of the law. If that were the case then the Scribes and Pharisees would have been most holy.
Exactly the same principle applies with YHWH as with theos appearing in the NT in the unqualified sense.
Don't be silly...YHWH is a name Theos is a title
Jesus is indivisibly united with his Father is what Jn 1:1 infers. In the NT, theos refering to anyone else but the person of the Father (the noun sense of theos) is always qualified by context or grammar.
So you are saying when Jesus died the father also died?
Again you don't grasp the distinction between noun and title usage. Greek gods are not labelled "the God."
Helios is the god and personification of the Sun
You err. The Father glorified Christ with himself.
I never said otherwise...
cjab said:
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5,
You have no scripture saying that.
Since you won't acknowledge what scripture says, on that point, I'm concluding.
How am I not acknowledging what the scripture says when you are not writing what the scripture says? I am not acknowledging what you are writing...
 

cjab

Well-known member
I never instructed you, you are pretending that I am instructing you.

"with thine own self" does not mean... "equally the Father gives of himself to others."
May be I should have put a comma after "equally." I was using it in the sense of "also."

For the Father does give of himself to others. Such is undeniable. A measure of divinity is given to angels, but much more to the ascended Son.

And Jesus saus "All things that the Father has are mine." Jn 16:15, even a throne of judgement derived from his sitting on his Father's throne.

Rev 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

This is demonstrating the transferal of divine attributes.

of himself indicates "some"

So what is the form of God?..
Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Could it be that the writer is trying to say "who existing in God considered [it] not something to be held on to, to be equivalent with God."
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
The inference being that to dwell in God, one must possess his form.

Just to be clear sons come out from their fathers, don't they?

So why do you disagree when I say the Logos is not God?
I would agree with you if you had said: The Logos is not "the God" (o theos).

Because in truth, the Logos is not "the God" as most reasonable scholars concur.

But as I have previously pointed out, in the predicate position, the English word "God" admits of the anarthrous (i.e. God without its implied article) even if it is ambiguous as to whether the definite sense is intended or not (such is one of the problems of the word "God" losing the definite article in English). Whereas "God" in the subject position always implies the definite article.

So just to say "the Logos is not God" without qualification has to be construed as a repudiation of the Greek. There isn't any reason to maintain it except the desire to accomodate socinianism, adoptionism or a heretical form of Arianism (JW etc).

Are you serious?.. You said the Logos is a Title...So what do you mean that the name Jesus was not given to a title? Why would anyone think that? Obviously, the n
Names are given to human beings, not to titles. A title doesn't need a name, because a title takes the form of a proper name in respect of what can only be the subject of a revelation from heaven itself. Thus YHWH function as a title or a name (it is immaterial). In the mouth of angels asserting themselves to be YHWH, it is moot whether it is a title or a name.

ame Jesus was given to the same person who had the title of Logos, ie the logos was made flesh.
i.e. the one who was made flesh.

semantics...The one who was the Logos was made flesh=Jesus. Jesus identified himself as being with God before the beginning of the world, therefore identifying himself as having the title Logos.
True.

No, I never mentioned retaining human attributes or divine attributes, that is your construct... Having divine attributes does not make one God.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Believers are partakers of the divine nature. Is it your contention that believers become Gods because they are partakers of the divine nature?
You have been mutating and developing your own position all the time.

You judge...was Paul not killing believers of Jesus with that knowledge of the law?
He knew the letter of the law, but was captivated by sin.

One does not derive holiness from knowledge of the law. If that were the case then the Scribes and Pharisees would have been most holy.
True.

Don't be silly...YHWH is a name Theos is a title
There are obvious differences in that YHWH originates in angelic relevation, whereas unqualified theos, especially unqualified "o theos," is a title formulated out of the Greek language, and adapted for application to YHWH in the context of the NT.

It is in the use/non-use of the article in Jn 1:1b, 1:1c where the distinction between noun and title becomes apparent. Theos is seen to act in the titular sense in 1:1b and in the noun sense in 1:1c, but where noun and the title are intimately related as to referent. i.e. The Logos is God, because the Logos is [clothed with all the attributes] of [the God] (as they relate to creation).

We can't go beyond the creation context, as dictated by Jn 1:1a, except to understand that [the God] is the head of [the Logos] (cf. 1 Cor 8:6 John 17:3 etc).

So you are saying when Jesus died the father also died?
??? never implied it.

Helios is the god and personification of the Sun

I never said otherwise...
cjab said:
The man Jesus was clothed with the glory of God on his ascension: John 17:5,
You have no scripture saying that.
Jesus will come again in the Father's glory (see the gospels and Titus 2:13). Jn 17:5 is unambiguos, despite your attempts to undermine it. See also passages like Rev 1:12-16, Rev 22:3,4 which makes it clear that Jesus is clothed with the glory of God himself. In any revelation of the Son, the glory of the Father will accompany it. Such is an inalienable property of the Son.

How am I not acknowledging what the scripture says when you are not writing what the scripture says? I am not acknowledging what you are writing...
I don't know what you are referring to.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
May be I should have put a comma after "equally." I was using it in the sense of "also."
Also does not mean equally in any way shape or form.
For the Father does give of himself to others. Such is undeniable.
I never denied that. I denied the equally stunt you tried to pull
A measure of divinity is given to angels, but much more to the ascended Son.
Stop playing word games. If you are referring to the divine nature a measure is also given to the believers. If you ar saying that makes Jesus God then angels are part gods and believers are also part Gods.
And Jesus saus "All things that the Father has are mine." Jn 16:15, even a throne of judgement derived from his sitting on his Father's throne.

Rev 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

This is demonstrating the transferal of divine attributes.
That is another false assertion''....If,.. and am set down with my Father in his throne.
is demonstrating the transferal of divine attributes then...To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, is also demonstrating transference of divine attributes.
The inference being that to dwell in God, one must possess his form.
Another false assertion..
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
If that is the case then believers possess the form of God when you take into consideration your previous assertion
I would agree with you if you had said: The Logos is not "the God" (o theos).
semantics, true believers have one God
Because in truth, the Logos is not "the God" as most reasonable scholars concur.
So how many Gods do you have?
But as I have previously pointed out, in the predicate position, the English word "God" admits of the anarthrous (i.e. God without its implied article) even if it is ambiguous as to whether the definite sense is intended or not (such is one of the problems of the word "God" losing the definite article in English). Whereas "God" in the subject position always implies the definite article.
You are invoking many Gods in the passage.
So just to say "the Logos is not God" without qualification has to be construed as a repudiation of the Greek.
And to say the Logos is God has to be construed as a repudiation of the Hebrew understanding. Hebrews have one God.
There isn't any reason to maintain it except the desire to accomodate socinianism, adoptionism or a heretical form of Arianism (JW etc).
The reason is to maintain One God. Nothing more.
Names are given to human beings,
Names can be given to anything sir...
not to titles.
you are the one who gave the title Logos a name..
A title doesn't need a name, because a title takes the form of a proper name in respect of what can only be the subject of a revelation from heaven itself.
A title is a title it does not take the form of a name. People may use a title in place of a name for example Sir, Madam, but it does not take the form of the proper name.
Thus YHWH function as a title or a name (it is immaterial).
How so? YHWH is the name of God it is not the title of anyone.
In the mouth of angels asserting themselves to be YHWH, it is moot whether it is a title or a name.
Angels do not assert themselves to be YHWH. If I sent you a voice message on your phone saying. I am a saint of God does that mean the phone is asserting itself to be a saint of God?
i.e. the one who was made flesh.
So you agree Jesus was made flesh?
So why the semantics?
You have been mutating and developing your own position all the time.
I have not changed my position...
No, I never mentioned retaining human attributes or divine attributes, that is your construct... Having divine attributes does not make one God.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Believers are partakers of the divine nature. Is it your contention that believers become Gods because they are partakers of the divine nature?
He knew the letter of the law, but was captivated by sin.
So how was knowledge of the law advantageous to him?
So what is your point here if not semantics?
That much is derisory. Rather mere knowledge of the law itself counts for nothing: only holiness deriving from that knowledge counts. (One can be a serial lawbreaker even with a good knowledge of the law.)
There are obvious differences in that YHWH originates in angelic relevation, whereas unqualified theos, especially unqualified "o theos," is a title formulated out of the Greek language, and adapted for application to YHWH in the context of the NT.

It is in the use/non-use of the article in Jn 1:1b, 1:1c where the distinction between noun and title becomes apparent. Theos is seen to act in the titular sense in 1:1b and in the noun sense in 1:1c, but where noun and the title are intimately related as to referent. i.e. The Logos is God, because the Logos is [clothed with all the attributes] of [the God] (as they relate to creation).

We can't go beyond the creation context, as dictated by Jn 1:1a, except to understand that [the God] is the head of [the Logos] (cf. 1 Cor 8:6 John 17:3 etc).
how does that nullify...YHWH is a name Theos is a title?
??? never implied it.
of course, you did... you said...Jesus is indivisibly united with his Father is what Jn 1:1 infers.
Jesus will come again in the Father's glory (see the gospels and Titus 2:13).
So it is YHWH's glory. The Glory Jesus did not have when he was praying.
Jn 17:5 is unambiguos, despite your attempts to undermine it. See also passages like Rev 1:12-16, Rev 22:3,4 which makes it clear that Jesus is clothed with the glory of God himself.
Which he did not have when he prayed to God to glorify him.
In any revelation of the Son, the glory of the Father will accompany it. Such is an inalienable property of the Son.
Which he did not have when he prayed for God to glorify him.
I don't know what you are referring to.
The scripture does not say the Word is God...
 

cjab

Well-known member
Also does not mean equally in any way shape or form.
"Equally" can include the "also" sense. Both Equally and Also are adverbs.

Equally can certainly be used as a substitute for also where the context allows it. Thus:
  • in addition and having the same importance (used to introduce a further comment).
    "not all who live in inner cities are poor; equally, many poor people live outside inner cities"
So the best sense of what I meant was that to the extent / degree that the Father himself possesses things, even his own divinity (i.e. to the extent of having life in himself John 5:26), he gives of those things to others, even to Christ.

Equally can also mean "to an equal degree"

This is shown by Jesus asserting "All things that the Father has are Mine" John 16:15.

To the extent that the Father is himself God, he is able to give of himself to others. Of course he won't give unless it is justified. Giving by the Father depends on one's obedience.

This is why, if you deny that Jesus could become divine on his ascension, you are attacking the whole premise of Christ's teaching.

I never denied that. I denied the equally stunt you tried to pull
If you can't make best sense of what I say, there is no point in conversing.

A conversation based on one party continually making the worst sense of what someone says, and the other having to continuously point out what the best sense is, is just a waste of time.

Either you are going to try to make the effort to meaningfully converse, or not. The choice is yours.


Stop playing word games. If you are referring to the divine nature a measure is also given to the believers. If you ar saying that makes Jesus God then angels are part gods and believers are also part Gods.

That is another false assertion''....If,.. and am set down with my Father in his throne.
is demonstrating the transferal of divine attributes then...To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, is also demonstrating transference of divine attributes.

Another false assertion..
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
If that is the case then believers possess the form of God when you take into consideration your previous assertion

semantics, true believers have one God

So how many Gods do you have?

You are invoking many Gods in the passage.

And to say the Logos is God has to be construed as a repudiation of the Hebrew understanding. Hebrews have one God.

The reason is to maintain One God. Nothing more.

Names can be given to anything sir...

you are the one who gave the title Logos a name..

A title is a title it does not take the form of a name. People may use a title in place of a name for example Sir, Madam, but it does not take the form of the proper name.

How so? YHWH is the name of God it is not the title of anyone.

Angels do not assert themselves to be YHWH. If I sent you a voice message on your phone saying. I am a saint of God does that mean the phone is asserting itself to be a saint of God?

So you agree Jesus was made flesh?

So why the semantics?

I have not changed my position...
No, I never mentioned retaining human attributes or divine attributes, that is your construct... Having divine attributes does not make one God.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Believers are partakers of the divine nature. Is it your contention that believers become Gods because they are partakers of the divine nature?

So how was knowledge of the law advantageous to him?

So what is your point here if not semantics?
That much is derisory. Rather mere knowledge of the law itself counts for nothing: only holiness deriving from that knowledge counts. (One can be a serial lawbreaker even with a good knowledge of the law.)

how does that nullify...YHWH is a name Theos is a title?

of course, you did... you said...Jesus is indivisibly united with his Father is what Jn 1:1 infers.

So it is YHWH's glory. The Glory Jesus did not have when he was praying.

Which he did not have when he prayed to God to glorify him.

Which he did not have when he prayed for God to glorify him.

The scripture does not say the Word is God...
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
"Equally" can include the "also" sense. Both Equally and Also are adverbs.
But it cannot work in your sentence to make sense of the gospel. Here is the scripture..5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:24
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Equally can certainly be used as a substitute for also where the context allows it. Thus:
  • in addition and having the same importance (used to introduce a further comment).
    "not all who live in inner cities are poor; equally, many poor people live outside inner cities"
So the best sense of what I meant was that to the extent / degree that the Father himself possesses things, even his own divinity (i.e. to the extent of having life in himself John 5:26), he gives of those things to others, even to Christ.
To the best sense of the gospel what you meant is wrong. God gives Jesus and Jesus in turn gives his followers. Using the word also in the "equally" sense would indicate believers also received the same as Jesus. Because the adverb is describing receiving glory.
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Equally can also mean "to an equal degree"
Therefore,equally can equally mean "to an equal degree"
This is shown by Jesus asserting "All things that the Father has are Mine" John 16:15.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

They are his because his father gave him all things. Believers are shown these things.
To the extent that the Father is himself God, he is able to give of himself to others.
This is referring to what the father has, however, the father gave all things to his son. No one can bypass the son to receive anything from the father.
Of course he won't give unless it is justified. Giving by the Father depends on one's obedience.
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
John 17:2
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

You are suggesting that the father gives all things to his son then he gives some of the all things to others.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
This is why, if you deny that Jesus could become divine on his ascension, you are attacking the whole premise of Christ's teaching.
You have to explain what you mean by became divine. Is it that Jesus became like God? Did he become God his father or did he become another God?
If you can't make best sense of what I say, there is no point in conversing.
What you say must make sense sir. I cannot make sense out of nonsense.
A conversation based on one party continually making the worst sense of what someone says, and the other having to continuously point out what the best sense is, is just a waste of time.
You are required to write sensibly. That way it makes sense on its own.
Either you are going to try to make the effort to meaningfully converse, or not. The choice is yours.
I am conversing meaningfully, the problem is the nonsense that you write. for example...what do you mean by "become divine?"
This is why, if you deny that Jesus could become divine on his ascension, you are attacking the whole premise of Christ's teaching.
 

cjab

Well-known member
But it cannot work in your sentence to make sense of the gospel. Here is the scripture..5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:24
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Check out 1 Cor 15:40-45.

The Lord Jesus Christ had a natural body. Although he manifested the glory of the Son of God in it, per Jn 1:14, the glory of the spiritual body had not yet been given to Christ, and wasn't until after his ascension.

So in Jn 17:5, Jesus focuses on the glory of the Logos which is that of the Father, and which the Son of God in his human state reflected, and which was given back to him in full on his ascension. In Jn 17:6 Jesus returns to praying for his disciples.

In Jn 17:24, 25 Jesus asks that they may see his glory. Per Alford "ἔγνω, ἔγνωσαν, ἐγνώρισα, γνωρίσω, shew that our Lord spoke here of the then present time and disciples again, at the close of His prayer. The γνωρίσω is by the whole work and testimony of the Spirit completed in the Kingdom of God. This promise has been in fulfilment through all the history of the Church." This refers to being made cognisant of Jesus' glory by the Holy Spirit.

To the best sense of the gospel what you meant is wrong. God gives Jesus and Jesus in turn gives his followers. Using the word also in the "equally" sense would indicate believers also received the same as Jesus. Because the adverb is describing receiving glory.
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
I did not say that believers receive the same glory as Christ. When used at the start of a sentence, "equally" can mean "of equal importance." May be you need to check your English grammar.

"Diet and exercise are equally good" can mean "diet and exercise are of equal good" or it can refer back to a previous sentence, as if written "Of equal importance is that diet and exercise are good." Here I placed the adverb at the front, so the emphasis is on equality of import with the previous sentence, which is to say that: as important as there being one supreme deity, the Father, is the fact that the Father imparts of himself to others.

So I wrote "There is only God, entitled the 'Father'. But equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus."

You seem to have misconstrued it as "The Father gives of himself to [all] others in equal measure", but the words and grammar used certainly doesn't warrant it, as I put "equally" at the very beginning of the sentence.

If I had written "But the Father gives equally of himself to others, even to Jesus" I could have been accused of being ambiguous, but the "even to Jesus" remark shows that the whole emphasis is on Christ, as being the intended referent of "others to whom the Father gives."

So not in the least ambiguous. The whole gist of what I was saying is that whereas God is possessed of divine attributes, of equal importance is that what he possesses he shares with others, and Jesus more than any other. But OTOH, if you had construed it that the Father gives fully of his divine attributes to Christ, you could not complain, per Col 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

Moreover disciples are not excluded from divine attributes. Peter alludes to all disciples being "partakers of the divine nature". The whole business of salvation is about gaining divine attributes.

Therefore,equally can equally mean "to an equal degree"
It can do, but seldom at the very beginning of a sentence.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

They are his because his father gave him all things. Believers are shown these things.
They are given in the measure they are deemed entitled to receive, which depends on obedience.

This is referring to what the father has, however, the father gave all things to his son. No one can bypass the son to receive anything from the father.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
John 17:2
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

You are suggesting that the father gives all things to his son then he gives some of the all things to others.
What is wrong with that?

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

You have to explain what you mean by became divine. Is it that Jesus became like God? Did he become God his father or did he become another God?
It is clear that the Logos shares the following attributes in common with the Father (1) Glory - Gk: doxa, (2) Form - Gk: morphe, (3) eternality, (4) nature - Gk: physis, (5) throne of God, and any others I have missed.

I can't say whether the Logos is "like" the Father (whatever that infers). All we are told is that the Logos is one with the Father.

What you say must make sense sir. I cannot make sense out of nonsense.

You are required to write sensibly. That way it makes sense on its own.

I am conversing meaningfully, the problem is the nonsense that you write. for example...what do you mean by "become divine?"
Divine means having the properties of a God or deity. By its very existence, divine lends itself to use with other that the supreme deity (the Father). So Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) is divine, in the sense that he can be blasphemed. If the Spirit of God is divine, so too must be the "Logos of God" Rev 19:13.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
Check out 1 Cor 15:40-45.

The Lord Jesus Christ had a natural body. Although he manifested the glory of the Son of God in it, per Jn 1:14, the glory of the spiritual body had not yet been given to Christ, and wasn't until after his ascension.
You are conflating different things, sir. You are forcing the context of 1 cor 15 into Jn1:14...
So in Jn 17:5, Jesus focuses on the glory of the Logos which is that of the Father, and which the Son of God in his human state reflected, and which was given back to him in full on his ascension. In Jn 17:6 Jesus returns to praying for his disciples.
That is nonsense...Jesus is glorified before his crucifixion...read it yourself...

Jn 13
31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
In Jn 17:24, 25 Jesus asks that they may see his glory. Per Alford "ἔγνω, ἔγνωσαν, ἐγνώρισα, γνωρίσω, shew that our Lord spoke here of the then present time and disciples again, at the close of His prayer. The γνωρίσω is by the whole work and testimony of the Spirit completed in the Kingdom of God. This promise has been in fulfilment through all the history of the Church." This refers to being made cognisant of Jesus' glory by the Holy Spirit.
You are funny...Jesus had already been glorified (Jn 13:31) the disciples' spiritual eyes were not yet open. Jesus is praying that their spiritual eyes be open.
I did not say that believers receive the same glory as Christ. When used at the start of a sentence, "equally" can mean "of equal importance." May be you need to check your English grammar.
Who cares about where "equally" is used...It was not used in the scripture... It is your personal narrative and irrelevant.
"Diet and exercise are equally good" can mean "diet and exercise are of equal good" or it can refer back to a previous sentence, as if written "Of equal importance is that diet and exercise are good." Here I placed the adverb at the front, so the emphasis is on equality of import with the previous sentence, which is to say that: as important as there being one supreme deity, the Father, is the fact that the Father imparts of himself to others.
The fact of the matter is it is not used in the scripture... You are pretending that it is used.
So I wrote "There is only God, entitled the 'Father'. But equally the Father gives of himself to others, even to Jesus."
In any case, you are writing what is not in the scripture...Therefore creating your own doctrine of confusion...
You seem to have misconstrued it as "The Father gives of himself to [all] others in equal measure", but the words and grammar used certainly doesn't warrant it, as I put "equally" at the very beginning of the sentence.
John did not put it you did, therefore it does not belong there... You are creating confusion in the scripture.
If I had written "But the Father gives equally of himself to others, even to Jesus" I could have been accused of being ambiguous, but the "even to Jesus" remark shows that the whole emphasis is on Christ, as being the intended referent of "others to whom the Father gives."
For this reason Paul wrote we should all speak the same thing...You are writing something different...
So not in the least ambiguous. The whole gist of what I was saying is that whereas God is possessed of divine attributes, of equal importance is that what he possesses he shares with others, and Jesus more than any other.
Semantics... If you wanted to write that you would have done it in the first place...Your folly is exposed.
But OTOH, if you had construed it that the Father gives fully of his divine attributes to Christ, you could not complain, per Col 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."
I did not make such a complaint
Moreover disciples are not excluded from divine attributes. Peter alludes to all disciples being "partakers of the divine nature". The whole business of salvation is about gaining divine attributes.
I never said they were...
It can do, but seldom at the very beginning of a sentence.
This is not a grammar study...
They are given in the measure they are deemed entitled to receive, which depends on obedience.
It depends on faith in God since all are required to be obedient... You keep posting your personal narrative...
What is wrong with that?
if all is given there is no more to share...
It is clear that the Logos shares the following attributes in common with the Father (1) Glory - Gk: doxa, (2) Form - Gk: morphe, (3) eternality, (4) nature - Gk: physis, (5) throne of God, and any others I have missed.
Explain what you mean by share.
I can't say whether the Logos is "like" the Father (whatever that infers). All we are told is that the Logos is one with the Father.
So tell us what you mean when you said Jesus became divine
Divine means having the properties of a God or deity.
Therefore a God... So you are saying Jesus became a God?
By its very existence, divine lends itself to use with other that the supreme deity (the Father).
Are you saying Jesus became the father?Because we believe there is one God.
So Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) is divine,
So Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) is God the Father or God the Holy Spirit?
in the sense that he can be blasphemed. If the Spirit of God is divine, so too must be the "Logos of God" Rev 19:13.
So you have many Gods ?
 

cjab

Well-known member
You are conflating different things, sir. You are forcing the context of 1 cor 15 into Jn1:14...
????????

That is nonsense...Jesus is glorified before his crucifixion...read it yourself...
Jesus had glory as the Son, and was glorified in the transfiguration, but there was also a future glory on his ascension per Jn 17:5.

Jn 13
31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
Jesus was looking forward to his death crucfixion resurrection and ascension (obviously).

You are funny...Jesus had already been glorified (Jn 13:31) the disciples' spiritual eyes were not yet open. Jesus is praying that their spiritual eyes be open.
There are progressive degrees of glory, and progressive degrees of recognition of it by others. What is so difficult to understand? Why do you insist on limiting God to what your own mind can conceive of?

Who cares about where "equally" is used...It was not used in the scripture... It is your personal narrative and irrelevant.
It is an English word. Not all English words occur in scripture. It doesn't mean we are forbidden to use them. The English vocabulary is rather larger 171,476 words that are in current use, over a million in total) than the Greek (5,420 distinct words discounting inflexions).

The fact of the matter is it is not used in the scripture... You are pretending that it is used.
There is a Greek word for equivalence, ἴσος, η, ον (isos) used in scripture (e.g. Phil 2:6) with an adverbial form ἴσως having a variety of contextual meanings
You always have to apply best sense - it's the golden rule of understanding language. Unfortunately there are many heresies which are based on little more than applying a worst sense interpretation, done so maliciously. There are some here who believe that when Jn 1:1c says "The Logos was God" it means "The Logos was the Father." That is a worst sense interpretation, and equally as bad as saying "The Logos was not God."

In any case, you are writing what is not in the scripture...Therefore creating your own doctrine of confusion...
You just can't understand my lingo.

John did not put it you did, therefore it does not belong there... You are creating confusion in the scripture.
I wasn't pretending to quote scripture.

For this reason Paul wrote we should all speak the same thing...You are writing something different...
He didn't say we should be parrots.

Semantics... If you wanted to write that you would have done it in the first place...Your folly is exposed.
You have yet to prove me a fool.

I did not make such a complaint

I never said they were...

This is not a grammar study...
This is the biblical languages forum. It's why it exists: to study languages and grammar.

It depends on faith in God since all are required to be obedient... You keep posting your personal narrative...

if all is given there is no more to share...

Explain what you mean by share.
What I means is what is written in Col 2:9: Christ participates in the divine attributes because the fulness of God the Father lives in him bodily.

So tell us what you mean when you said Jesus became divine
Exactly what I have written above.

Therefore a God... So you are saying Jesus became a God?
Not "a god" but God-like if you will.

Are you saying Jesus became the father? Because we believe there is one God.
No. He became united with the Father, as one ruler over creation.

So Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) is God the Father or God the Holy Spirit?
Neither. The Holy Spirit is "of God" is the point I was making, as is the Logos "of God."

What is directly "of God" can be categorized as divine.

So you have many Gods ?
No. You appear not to be able to grasp the ramifications of Col 2:9 and Jn 1:1.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
As usual you have nothing to say..
Jesus had glory as the Son, and was glorified in the transfiguration, but there was also a future glory on his ascension per Jn 17:5.
your ignorance is amazing...32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him
Jesus was looking forward to his death crucfixion resurrection and ascension (obviously).
Mark 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
There are progressive degrees of glory, and progressive degrees of recognition of it by others. What is so difficult to understand? Why do you insist on limiting God to what your own mind can conceive of?
show the scripture saying progressive degrees of glory...So you think that you are assisting God by adding to the scripture by your imagination?
It is an English word. Not all English words occur in scripture.
I am referring to your personal addition. There are no English words in the original writings.
It doesn't mean we are forbidden to use them.
So it is ok for you to add words to the scriptures?
The English vocabulary is rather larger 171,476 words that are in current use, over a million in total) than the Greek (5,420 distinct words discounting inflexions).
That does not help your argument. All you are saying is that you have more words to play with therefore you can add them whenever you want.
There is a Greek word for equivalence, ἴσος, η, ον (isos) used in scripture (e.g. Phil 2:6) with an adverbial form ἴσως having a variety of contextual meanings
You always have to apply best sense - it's the golden rule of understanding language.
No, you have to apply it in the context of what is being translated. The translated work must make the same sense as the original.
Unfortunately there are many heresies which are based on little more than applying a worst sense interpretation, done so maliciously. There are some here who believe that when Jn 1:1c says "The Logos was God" it means "The Logos was the Father." That is a worst sense interpretation,
It is clear that God in the passage is referring to Elohim in some places to agree with the Hebrew understanding. And YHWH in some places. The author then makes it very clear God /Elohim was with his Elohim.
1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Therefore if the Logos was God in the sense of not being the father. The Logos is only an Elohim. Not YHWH.

and equally as bad as saying "The Logos was not God."
There is no case where the Logos could be God in the sense of YHWH therefore it cannot be a bad thing for a believer to say the Logos was not God since the believer has one God YHWH.
You just can't understand my lingo.
because it makes no sense.
I wasn't pretending to quote scripture.
No you did not...there is no"equally" in the passage.
He didn't say we should be parrots.
But that is what he meant...parrots do not make up new words to say.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
You have yet to prove me a fool.
You beat me to it.
This is the biblical languages forum. It's why it exists: to study languages and grammar.
My bad I was of the view that it existed to help us understand the scripture.
What I means is what is written in Col 2:9: Christ participates in the divine attributes because the fulness of God the Father lives in him bodily.
We are partakers of the same divine attributes because we have a deposit.
Exactly what I have written above.
therefor nothing.
Not "a god" but God-like if you will.
More word games...You are saying the Logos is God but Jesus is not God?
No. He became united with the Father, as one ruler over creation.
1 Cor 15
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
I like how the AMp version puts it...
AMP
For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son].
CEV
When the Scriptures say he will put everything under his power, they don't include God. It was God who put everything under the power of Christ.
Neither. The Holy Spirit is "of God" is the point I was making, as is the Logos "of God."
therefore you are saying they are not God yet you chastise me for saying the Logos is not God..
What is directly "of God" can be categorized as divine.
But you agree that being categorized as divine does not make one God. Yet you chastise me for saying the Logos is not God
No. You appear not to be able to grasp the ramifications of Col 2:9 and Jn 1:1.
I am able to expose your nonsense. It is Ok for you to say the Logos is not God but it is not OK fo me to do the same.
 

cjab

Well-known member
As usual you have nothing to say..
I don't understand your comment. You need to articule yourself better, especially when laying charges against another. Laying charges against people without proper evidence is a waste of time.

your ignorance is amazing...32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him
In Jn 17 Jesus has not then completed his mission. His obedience wasn't complete. It was not yet "finished." Are you trying to say that the glory went to Jesus even before its completion?

Mark 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

show the scripture saying progressive degrees of glory...So you think that you are assisting God by adding to the scripture by your imagination?
Hebrews 5:8-14 said the Son was made perfect through suffering. "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." He has not fulfilled his suffering when he uttered the prayers in John 17.

I am referring to your personal addition. There are no English words in the original writings.

So it is ok for you to add words to the scriptures?
Getting fed up with this foolery. I did not insert words into any scripture.

That does not help your argument. All you are saying is that you have more words to play with therefore you can add them whenever you want.
We can bring out the scriptural meaning using English words. What do think commentaries are for? I suppose you never read them, as none of them support your socinian position? You strike me as being someone ignorant of the vast majority of Christian scholarship.

Sad that you seem to think you can set your face against most of the overwhelming majority of Christendom down the ages and be accounted orthodox.

Did the faith start with Fausto Sozzini?

No, you have to apply it in the context of what is being translated. The translated work must make the same sense as the original.

It is clear that God in the passage is referring to Elohim in some places to agree with the Hebrew understanding. And YHWH in some places. The author then makes it very clear God /Elohim was with his Elohim.
1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Therefore if the Logos was God in the sense of not being the father. The Logos is only an Elohim. Not YHWH.
I'm not disputing it, but as it happens there is no need to reverse translate the Greek, because even angels in the OT described themselves as YHWH. You just need to understand why, which is problematic for you.

There is no case where the Logos could be God in the sense of YHWH therefore it cannot be a bad thing for a believer to say the Logos was not God since the believer has one God YHWH.
Now this is a different argument from before, and it is no part of my argument that the "Logos is YHWH" but one with YHWH and having similar characteristics.

because it makes no sense.

No you did not...there is no"equally" in the passage.

But that is what he meant...parrots do not make up new words to say.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
That doesn't mean we all have to use identical words. You're beginning to act like an RC inquistor judging those who decline to parrot some creed.

You beat me to it.

My bad I was of the view that it existed to help us understand the scripture.

We are partakers of the same divine attributes because we have a deposit.

therefor nothing.

More word games...You are saying the Logos is God but Jesus is not God?
Jesus did not have sufficient attributes to be entitled to the noun sense of "God" legitimately. As Hebrews says, he was made a little lower than the angels. Angels are not "God."

1 Cor 15
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
I like how the AMp version puts it...
AMP
For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son].
CEV
When the Scriptures say he will put everything under his power, they don't include God. It was God who put everything under the power of Christ.

therefore you are saying they are not God yet you chastise me for saying the Logos is not God.
I'm saying you refuse to see the grammatical difference between theos with the definite article, and theos as an anarthrous-predicate contextual to Jn 1:1. English translations are not going to tell you what's going on with the Greek grammar in Jn 1:1. Actually the NET bible does attempt to state the distinction, but not well in its "fully God."

You'll need to read up about it yourself. If you can't be bothered I can't help you (Try Caragounis on John 1:1).

.

But you agree that being categorized as divine does not make one God. Yet you chastise me for saying the Logos is not God
Rather, ...does not make one [the God]. I chastize you for being indolent, and not doing sufficient research. You speak from a position of ignorance in that you've entered into a scholastic debate, and you won't even read what the scholars say. That's hypocritical. Why not just say "I am out of my depth here?" Hiding your ignorance behind condemnation of others is also hypocritical.

I am able to expose your nonsense. It is Ok for you to say the Logos is not God but it is not OK fo me to do the same.
No you don't expose me, because you have no scholarship to back you up, and you can't coherently articulate yourself when it comes to fine questions on Greek grammar (in common with others on this forum).
 
Last edited:
Top