Does God have eyes?

That's not reading on. That came earlier in the text. The author states later (the part that I quoted) that they ruled out that rendering, but that it is possible. You aren't being honest with your sources.
I assure you my quote comes late on, lower down and on the next page.
 
I assure you my quote comes late on, lower down and on the next page.
My apologies. You are correct concerning the location of the source in the text. You still are not correct about the meaning of what I've quoted. The point the author is making is that neither "a God" nor "the God" is indicated by the grammar of "theos" used as an anarthrous predicate. Therefore, it is false for you to assert that the translation "a God" is forbidden on those terms.
 
Last edited:
Read on:

[Theos] is anarthrous because it is predicate. But this for a Greek does not mean "a
God" (which would have been Θεός τις or εις Θεός), nor does it mean "the
God" (ό Θεός). It means simply "God". The question of definite or indefinite
does not arise for a Greek in this context, because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence, not an individual.
Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute. From the theological point, too, we see
that John's use of Θεός (instead of ό Θεός) was not only grammatically
correct, but also reflected his theological conception. At the beginning,
when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the
Two. The Logos was God and yet he was not ilie God (which he reserves
for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the
Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements
that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I". The
third clause shows a beautiful balance between the two and is the result
of mature reflection on the problem of Godhead.
The case you are making proves that the Logos is not God. Therefore you are making the Logos another God. We do not have two Gods. Your argument about correct grammar goes against the belief of one God.
 
My apologies. You are correct concerning the location of the source in the text. You still are not correct about the meaning of what I've quoted. The point the author is making is that neither "a God" nor "the God" is indicated by the grammar of "theos" used as an anarthrous predicate. Therefore, it is false for you to assert that the translation "a God" is forbidden on those terms.
You've just contradicted yourself. The reason that "a God" is forbidden in this context (it could be allowed if the context was idolatry or pagan belief systems) is just because "theos" is introduced in Jn 1:1b with the article, and without reference to any previous name or invocation of God. Indeed Jn 1:1b commands us to understand that the context is strict monotheism. This is why is contextually wrong to allow "a God" in Jn 1:1c.
 
The case you are making proves that the Logos is not God. Therefore you are making the Logos another God. We do not have two Gods. Your argument about correct grammar goes against the belief of one God.
You are subverting the Word of God. Therefore you are a heretic.
 
Your claim that the Word is not Jesus before Jesus was born therefore you cannot say Jesus emptied anything...
You refuse to accept that the one entitled "the Logos" emptied himself to become Jesus. That puts you into the "HERETIC" category. Your brand of heresy is very old, long predating Nicea and unreservedly condemned by the apostles and their immediate successors.

You are being silly...Who is the one that became Jesus? If someone who was not Jesus emptied himself then it was not Jesus who emptied himself as you are trying to claim. You are not following any narrative but your own.
Since I have constantly stressed that Jesus and the Logos have the same identity, the perversity is all yours.


Whose identity in heaven as the one entitled Logos? You seem to be saying that Jesus existed in heaven as the Logos. But when I say it you chastise me.
Have you said that Jesus existed in heaven as the Logos who is described as God? You contradict yourself all the time. It's getting boring talking to you.

So you are conceding that Jesus is the Word. How can the word be God his father? We do not have two Gods, do we? If the word is God then he must be another God.
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the anarthrous predicate and the definite article.

Therefore, Jesus, who is the Word cannot be God in any way shape, or form.
In heaven Jesus (as the Logos) has the form of God (Phil 2:6). Your perversity is exposed by your rejection of what the scriptures say.

Jesus is not God in any way shape or form you are admitting two Gods
Your sham attempts to confound the man and the Logos are so boring.

ds. Lord does not mean Jesus is a God or defacto God as you claim
That is because Jesus is not your Lord.

Jesus did... wasn't Adam a regular man? Adam was not born like us was he? If Jesus was not a regular man then Adam was not a regular man either.

because you have no argument against it.
John 3:34
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

John explained it...
John 1:16
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Have you received grace? Where is it? Why do you doubt what his servants the apostles say?

The same way anyone exercises lordship over their servants... You are desperately trying to make Jesus into a God.
Jesus is not your Lord, for you do not credit his servants and asperse them as liars.

The gospel is very simple...your nonsense makes it complicated...
2 Corinthians 1:12
For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
The simplicity of unbelief is beguiling. To opine that there was a man named Jesus who died for sins is no more than what the devil believes.

So how does that help your argument? You are the one asking what was the power given to Christ.

I said it does not say what power. It says all power.
So how is "all power" incompatible with being de facto God?
 
Last edited:
You are subverting the Word of God. Therefore you are a heretic.
How am I subverting the Word of God? Is it because I am saying the Word is not God? I have only one God, the Father. You seem to have another God apart from the father.
Therefore you are the heretic.

Like Reply
 
How am I subverting the Word of God? Is it because I am saying the Word is not God?
Yes

I have only one God, the Father. You seem to have another God apart from the father.
Therefore you are the heretic.
That's not the way is works. Jesus taught that no-one can have the Father as their God unless they own Jesus (John 6:65).

The Father enables disciples of Christ. When Christ came he made visible the divine order: it is The Father who is the head of the ascended Christ (the Logos), but Christ who is the head of man (1 Cor 11:3).

So it is irrelevant that you assert the Father as your God, if the Father has not enabled you to come to Christ and see him for what he really is - imbued with "all power under heaven and earth." That is God-like, isn't it?

"No one cometh unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6.

It doesn't matter that you say there is only one God. Even the devil believes it: James 2:19.
 
You refuse to accept that the one entitled "the Logos" emptied himself to become Jesus.
I refuse to accept that the one entitled "the Logos" is God.
That puts you into the "HERETIC" category. Your brand of heresy is very old, long predating Nicea and unreservedly condemned by the apostles and their immediate successors.
How could having only the Father as my God put me into the heretic category? You have the Logos as another God, which puts you in the heretic category
Since I have constantly stressed that Jesus and the Logos have the same identity, the perversity is all yours.
You are not making any sense...To you the identity of the Logos is God but the identity of Jesus is not God...You are speaking with a forked tongue.
Have you said that Jesus existed in heaven as the Logos who is described as God?
No, I have not. I have consistently said that the Logos is not God and you consistently chastise me for saying it.
You contradict yourself all the time. It's getting boring talking to you.
No, I don't contradict myself, I have made it clear that the Logos/Jesus is not God
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the anarthrous predicate and the definite article.
I refuse to accept your nonsense...
In heaven Jesus (as the Logos) has the form of God (Phil 2:6). Your perversity is exposed by your rejection of what the scriptures say.
The form of God is not God. You are trying to make Jesus a God.
Your sham attempts to confound the man and the Logos are so boring.
The Logos was made flesh...
That is because Jesus is not your Lord.
Jesus is my Lord but not my God. Jesus has a God, Jesus' God is my God.
Have you received grace?
Yes I have received grace,
Where is it?
grace is not tangible
Why do you doubt what his servants the apostles say?
I don't doubt the apostles, I doubt your understanding of the translation.
Jesus is not your Lord, for you do not credit his servants and asperse them as liars.
I do not credit you because you are not his servant. You are trying to make Jesus God.
The simplicity of unbelief is beguiling.
What part of the passages I posted is unbelief?
2 Corinthians 1:12
For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
The gospel is very simple...your nonsense makes it complicated...
To opine that there was a man named Jesus who died for sins is no more than what the devil believes.
In other words it is no more than what you believe
So how is "all power" incompatible with being de facto God?
Because believers have only one God. There is no defacto God to the believer. A defacto God is admitting more than one God.
 
Then you are saying that the Word= Jesus =God
That's not the way is works. Jesus taught that no-one can have the Father as their God unless they own Jesus (John 6:65).
No, This is what Jesus said...
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
The Father enables disciples of Christ.
And this is the way it happens...
Romans 2:4
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
When Christ came he made visible the divine order: it is The Father who is the head of the ascended Christ (the Logos), but Christ who is the head of man (1 Cor 11:3).
You are babbling...The father was always the head of Jesus. You seem to be saying the father only became the head of Jesus after he ascended.
So it is irrelevant that you assert the Father as your God, if the Father has not enabled you to come to Christ and see him for what he really is - imbued with "all power under heaven and earth." That is God-like, isn't it?
More babbling on your part...God leads us to repentance and rewards those who diligently seek him...
Romans 2:4
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

God-like is not God...Jesus encourages his disciples to be God-like...
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

That does not mean they become defacto Gods.

"No one cometh unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6.

It doesn't matter that you say there is only one God. Even the devil believes it: James 2:19.
So why are you claiming another God who is a defacto God? You seem to be saying that the devil has more faith than you.
 
You've just contradicted yourself. The reason that "a God" is forbidden in this context (it could be allowed if the context was idolatry or pagan belief systems) is just because "theos" is introduced in Jn 1:1b with the article, and without reference to any previous name or invocation of God. Indeed Jn 1:1b commands us to understand that the context is strict monotheism. This is why is contextually wrong to allow "a God" in Jn 1:1c.
I've not contradicted myself; you are confused once again. John 1:1b allows the translation "a God" in John 1:1, because it makes a distinction between the previously mentioned "theos" and the word who is also called "theos" immediately following. Reading only John 1:1, the passage is most likely to be understood as referring to two different "Gods" as Newbirth has repeatedly pointed out. As I've said repeatedly, it is the context of the Gospel as a whole that informs us that this understanding is incorrect, not grammar.
 
I've not contradicted myself; you are confused once again. John 1:1b allows the translation "a God" in John 1:1, because it makes a distinction between the previously mentioned "theos"
There is no previously mentioned theos. The first occurrence is in Jn 1:1b.

and the word who is also called "theos" immediately following. Reading only John 1:1, the passage is most likely to be understood as referring to two different "Gods" as Newbirth has repeatedly pointed out. As I've said repeatedly, it is the context of the Gospel as a whole that informs us that this understanding is incorrect, not grammar.
You are quite wrong: there is only one God: that of Hebrew monotheism, and Caragounis repudiates you also.
 
There is no previously mentioned theos. The first occurrence is in Jn 1:1b.
Unless you misunderstood my point, why are you bringing this up?
You are quite wrong: there is only one God: that of Hebrew monotheism,
I never claimed there was another, so how do you imagine I am wrong? Let me repeat what I actually said once more with emphasis: the understanding that there is one God is CONTEXTUAL. It cannot be gained from the grammar of John 1:1 alone.
and Caragounis repudiates you also.
He doesn't repute anything I've said. You're going to have to be more specific about your false claim(s), so that I can correct you again.
 
I never claimed there was another, so how do you imagine I am wrong? Let me repeat what I actually said once more with emphasis: the understanding that there is one God is CONTEXTUAL. It cannot be gained from the grammar of John 1:1 alone.
This is how he shifts his own misunderstanding... He says there is only one God but there is also a defacto God. Clearly, he is claiming two Gods...God the father and a defacto God... He does not understand one God means there can be no other God to the believer.
 
Unless you misunderstood my point, why are you bringing this up?

I never claimed there was another, so how do you imagine I am wrong? Let me repeat what I actually said once more with emphasis: the understanding that there is one God is CONTEXTUAL. It cannot be gained from the grammar of John 1:1 alone.
Yes it can. God is both a noun and title in Jn 1:1b. The implication must be that there is just one God who beats such a title.

Everything is subordinate to 1:1b.

He doesn't repute anything I've said. You're going to have to be more specific about your false claim(s), so that I can correct you again.
Caragounis doesn't admit "two different "Gods" as Newbirth has repeatedly pointed out" and neither do I. Jn 1:1 is far more sophisticated than you give it credit for. I worked out what it meant ages ago. You have still to learn. I cannot think why you assume you're competent to instruct others in theological matters: a smattering of Greek doesn't do it.

You have repeatedly made a fool of yourself in attempting to exegete Jn 1:1, and I don't need your "help or corrections" (as if you could do either).
 
Last edited:
Yes it can. God is both a noun and title in Jn 1:1b. The implication must be that there is just one God who beats such a title.
The word is also “God” per 1:1c. Since Caragounis capitalizes it, it is reasonable to assume he believes it is a title as well. (All titles are nouns.)
Everything is subordinate to 1:1b.
John 1:1b stresses the individual identities of “the Father” and “the Word”. It does not suggest the unity between them that you read into the text.
Caragounis doesn't admit "two different "Gods" as Newbirth has repeatedly pointed out" and neither do I.
You’ve intentionally misquoted me again. That’s not what I’ve asserted.
Jn 1:1 is far more sophisticated than you give it credit for.
No. It’s not.
I worked out what it meant ages ago.
Nope.
You have still to learn. I cannot think why you assume you're competent to instruct others in theological matters: a smattering of Greek doesn't do it.
I’ve not been trying to correct you on doctrinal matters, so that is irrelevant. I’m correcting you on grammatical matters.

You have repeatedly made a fool of yourself in attempting to exegete Jn 1:1, and I don't need your "help or corrections" (as if you could do either).
My message on this passage has been consistent and correct. You have “repeatedly made a fool of yourself” arguing with facts.
 
You claim the Word is God. You claim The Father is God. The Word is not the Father therefore you have two Gods.
I've concluded from the above that you are so enveloped in the deceit of your cult that you are not the worth further debate. You are a propaganda specialist not devoted to the word of God, but to furthering your inimical cult.
 
Last edited:
The word is also “God” per 1:1c. Since Caragounis capitalizes it, it is reasonable to assume he believes it is a title as well. (All titles are nouns.)

John 1:1b stresses the individual identities of “the Father” and “the Word”. It does not suggest the unity between them that you read into the text.

You’ve intentionally misquoted me again. That’s not what I’ve asserted.

No. It’s not.

Nope.

I’ve not been trying to correct you on doctrinal matters, so that is irrelevant. I’m correcting you on grammatical matters.


My message on this passage has been consistent and correct. You have “repeatedly made a fool of yourself” arguing with facts.
As I have long said, you are a disinformation specialist: indeed a professional slanderer. You appear to have no inkling of the rudiments of Christianity. You even appear to be clueless that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. The scale of your incessant and gratuitious abuse levelled against other posters suggests that you know nothing of Christ or his religion. Go make your home with the heretics then, whose drivel you prefer.
 
Last edited:
I've concluded from the above that you are so enveloped in the deceit of your cult that you are not the worth further debate. You are a propaganda specialist not devoted to the word of God, but to furthering your inimical cult.
You responded with Adhom... Why are you not denying the claims? You claim the Word is God. You claim The Father is God. The conclusion to your claims is this...The Word is not the Father therefore you have two Gods.
 
Back
Top