You're the sleaze merchant.What it discloses is your sleazy manner of discussion. I do not conflate "named"/"entitled" with "called" as you asserted here, nor did I claim that Jesus is called "YHWH" because "o theos" and "YHWH" are not always equivalent. You are arguing with a position that you have created.
You know perfectly well that to be "called God" connotes the name or title of "God" which is not given to Jesus or the Word.
The title of Jesus is the "Son of [the living] God" - 48 references in the NT alone - as against 0 for "God". You really should fact check your remarks. Also the resurrected Christ is called "The Logos of God."
The statistics speak for themselves. Unqualified "O Theos" is not the title of the Logos or Jesus, Mr. Sabellian.According to your position, this should not be able to occur if "o theos" were an exclusive reference to God.
Then you admit your position is bogus. All of these determinations have to be made on the basis of context not on the basis of your fabricated "grammatical" rule, which is anything but. Context makes the determination, not the use or disuse of the article, with or without any additional modifiers.
The only difficulties are for those who cannot see. The NT is very consistent provided you grasp it correctly. Jesus refers to o theos as his Father and our Father. End of.No. It shows that I acknowledge the difficulty that exists when trying to reconcile what the Bible says on this topic. I don't ignore or reinterpret one side of a seemingly incongruent testimony to reconcile it with the other as you do. Your understanding is based in part on your limited knowledge of the nature of God and in the main on your worldview. It is your deficient world view that forbids other understandings of the text, and not the information within the text.
I couldn't care about your allegations, as your own position is incoherent. When you have a coherent position, get back to me.When someone puts something in quotes, it is generally understood (except by you who would have to be among the world's worst lawyers if your claims in this thread are accurate) that they are giving what they intend. I believe I explained this to you somewhere before already. Either way, as I know I've said above, your position is bogus whether "o theos" is qualified or not.
You know full well that you were attempting to slander me with a ridiculous strawman, but you couldn't even manage that because of your overwhelming incompetence.
Except in those instances where they weren't talking about the true God. There is no default meaning of the word as you imagine.